6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Auth. v. State, 15 P.3d 754 , 763 n.21 (Alaska 2001) (“A postage stamp rate structure charges all customers the same rate regardless of the associated cost of serving them.”). 4 See AS 42.05.361(a) (“Under regulations the [RCA] shall adopt, every public utility shall file with the [RCA] . . . its complete tariff showing all rates . . . .”); AS 42.05.381(a) (“All rates demanded or received by a public utility, or by any two or more public utilities jointly, . . . shall be just and reasonable . . . .”); AS 42.05.431(a) (“When the [RCA], after an investigation and hearing, finds that a rate deman | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2013In Beegan v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, we held that a complainant could not be barred by res judicata from pursuing a claim that could have been, but was not, raised in an earlier Commission investigation because he lacked control over the Commission process.36 But the situation here is the reverse: whereas the complainant in Beegan lacked the “full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims” that res judicata requires of the first case to reach final judgment (because the 33 Stewart v. Elliott, 239 P.3d 1236, 1241 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Alaska Foods, Inc. v. Ni | 1 | 1 |
Alaska Foods, Inc. v. Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd.green2 sentences2013In Beegan v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, we held that a complainant could not be barred by res judicata from pursuing a claim that could have been, but was not, raised in an earlier Commission investigation because he lacked control over the Commission process.36 But the situation here is the reverse: whereas the complainant in Beegan lacked the “full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims” that res judicata requires of the first case to reach final judgment (because the 33 Stewart v. Elliott, 239 P.3d 1236, 1241 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Alaska Foods, Inc. v. Ni 2013In Beegan v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, we held that a complainant could not be barred by res judicata from pursuing a claim that could have been, but was not, raised in an earlier Commission investigation because he lacked control over the Commission process.36 But the situation here is the reverse: whereas the complainant in Beegan lacked the “full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims” that res judicata requires of the first case to reach final judgment (because the 33 Stewart v. Elliott, 239 P.3d 1236, 1241 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Alaska Foods, Inc. v. Ni | 1 | 1 |
Mehra v. Mehragreen1 sentence2013Cross, 848 S.W.2d at 24. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matanuska Electric Ass'n, Inc. v. Chugach Electric Ass'n, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2007AS 42.05.431(a) clarifies the power of the Commission to set rates: When the commission, after an investigation and hearing, finds that a rate demanded, observed, charged, or collected by a public utility for a service subject to the jurisdiction of the commission, or that a classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting the rate, is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, the commission shall determine a just and reasonable rate, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract to be observed or allowed and shall establish it by order. 18 . 58 P. 2007Id. at 493-95 . 20 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Far North Sanitation, Inc. v. Alaska Public Utilities Commission
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 873 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Matter of Carroll v. . Knickerbocker Ice Co.
green
2 sentences1970In Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Company, 218 N.Y. 435 , 113 N.E. 507 (1916) the provisions being interpreted read as follows: “Technical Rules of Evidence or Procedure Not Required. 1970The Commission or a commissioner or deputy commissioner in making an investigation or inquiry or conducting a hearing shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure, except as provided *32 by this chapter; but may make such investigation or inquiry or conduct such hearing in such manner as to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties.” 113 N.E. at 508 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.