6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehangreen2 sentences2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on 2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commissiongreen2 sentences2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on 2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on | 1 | 1 |
State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. Carlsongreen2 sentences2023Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003))). -104- 7646 “obvious[ly] . . . military personnel share the same employer, the same noble mission, the same workplace, and the same shopping and medical facilities”; and “ ‘communities of interest’ is a synonym for areas that are socio-economically integrated,” such that “Eagle River and South Anchorage are not separate communities of interest that cannot be combined with other areas of Anchorage and cannot be split.” The Board’s argument somewhat misrepresents the court’s discussion. 2023Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003))). -104- 7646 “obvious[ly] . . . military personnel share the same employer, the same noble mission, the same workplace, and the same shopping and medical facilities”; and “ ‘communities of interest’ is a synonym for areas that are socio-economically integrated,” such that “Eagle River and South Anchorage are not separate communities of interest that cannot be combined with other areas of Anchorage and cannot be split.” The Board’s argument somewhat misrepresents the court’s discussion. | 1 | 1 |
Northeast Georgia Radiological Associates v. Tidwellgreen1 sentence2016Ga. Radiological Assocs., P.C. v. Tidwell, 670 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); accord Shahewy v. Harrison, 875 F.2d 1529 , 1533-34 (11th Cir. 1989); Osuagwu v. Gila Reg’l Med. | 1 | 1 |
Shahawy v. Harrisongreen1 sentence2016Ga. Radiological Assocs., P.C. v. Tidwell, 670 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); accord Shahewy v. Harrison, 875 F.2d 1529 , 1533-34 (11th Cir. 1989); Osuagwu v. Gila Reg’l Med. | 1 | 1 |
McDougald v. Garbergreen2 sentences2007"In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling." Id. at 943. [63] Op. at 1019. [64] Op. at 1019 (citing Election Pamphlet for 1987 Initiative Proposal No. 2 (87TOR2) (statement in support)). [65] Op. at 1021. [66] The history of the initiative, including the explanation on the ballot, is not so clear on the reduction topic as to nullify the words of AS 09.17.080(c). [67] See McDougald v. Garber, 73 N.Y.2d 246 2007"In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling." Id. at 943. [63] Op. at 1019. [64] Op. at 1019 (citing Election Pamphlet for 1987 Initiative Proposal No. 2 (87TOR2) (statement in support)). [65] Op. at 1021. [66] The history of the initiative, including the explanation on the ballot, is not so clear on the reduction topic as to nullify the words of AS 09.17.080(c). [67] See McDougald v. Garber, 73 N.Y.2d 246 | 1 | 1 |
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinezgreen2 sentences1988See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49 , 56 L Ed 2d 106 , 98 S Ct 1670 (1978). 1988See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49 , 56 L Ed 2d 106 , 98 S Ct 1670 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Arkansasgreen2 sentences1978Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 308 (1973); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed.2d 644, 647 (1948); Alto v. State, 565 P.2d 492, 495 (Alaska 1977). 1978Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 308 (1973); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed.2d 644, 647 (1948); Alto v. State, 565 P.2d 492, 495 (Alaska 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Alto v. Stategreen2 sentences1978Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 308 (1973); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed.2d 644, 647 (1948); Alto v. State, 565 P.2d 492, 495 (Alaska 1977). 1978Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 308 (1973); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed.2d 644, 647 (1948); Alto v. State, 565 P.2d 492, 495 (Alaska 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences1978Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 308 (1973); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed.2d 644, 647 (1948); Alto v. State, 565 P.2d 492, 495 (Alaska 1977). 1978Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 308 (1973); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed.2d 644, 647 (1948); Alto v. State, 565 P.2d 492, 495 (Alaska 1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frontier Saloon, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
green
2 sentences2016We previously confirmed the importance of a hearing before suspending or terminating a doctor’s staff privileges because summary action amounts to “a stigma of medical incompetence” affecting the doctor’s ability to maintain income and reputation, both during the period between the deprivation of privileges and a hearing as well as after the hearing.17 This stigma is compounded because federal law now 15 Id. (quoting Frontier Saloon, 524 P.2d at 661 ). 16 Ne. 2016We previously confirmed the importance of a hearing before suspending or terminating a doctor’s staff privileges because summary action amounts to “a stigma of medical incompetence” affecting the doctor’s ability to maintain income and reputation, both during the period between the deprivation of privileges and a hearing as well as after the hearing.17 This stigma is compounded because federal law now 15 Id. (quoting Frontier Saloon, 524 P.2d at 661 ). 16 Ne. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Marks v. City of Anchorage
green
1 sentence1978We discussed this rule in Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644 (Alaska 1972) in the following language: In other words, to protect first amendment freedoms, the Court has allowed “vicarious” assaults on invalid statutes; a defendant need not show that his conduct was itself entitled to protection as a prerequisite to successfully attack an overbroad or vague statute. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.