6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2009 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Godfrey v. Hemenwaygreen2 sentences1981II Defendants contend that even if the statute is adopted as a more precise definition of the standard of care, Nazareno was not entitled to an instruction on negligence per se because the record does not contain “sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that this statute . . . was violated.” Godfrey v. Hemenway, 617 P.2d at 7 . “[T]he test is whether the facts and resulting inferences are such that reasonable people, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction, could justifiably have different views on the question.” Id. at 7-8 . 1981II Defendants contend that even if the statute is adopted as a more precise definition of the standard of care, Nazareno was not entitled to an instruction on negligence per se because the record does not contain “sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that this statute . . . was violated.” Godfrey v. Hemenway, 617 P.2d at 7 . “[T]he test is whether the facts and resulting inferences are such that reasonable people, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction, could justifiably have different views on the question.” Id. at 7-8 . | 1 | 2 |
Hodges v. Alaska Constructors, Inc.green1 sentence2009Hodges v. Alaska Constructors, Inc., 957 P.2d 957, 960 (Alaska 1998). 6 .AS 23.30.110(c) provides: Before a hearing is scheduled, the party seeking a hearing shall file a request for a hearing together with an affidavit stating that the party has completed necessary discovery, obtained necessary evidence, and is prepared for the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. $28,500 United States Currencygreen2 sentences1998Monroe Street, 884 F.Supp. 1218, 1225-26 (C.D.Ill.1995); People v. $28,500 in U.S. Currency, 51 Cal.App.4th 447 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239, 251-52 (1996) ("A party seeking to challenge the government's forfeiture of money or property used in violation of federal law must first demonstrate an interest in the seized item sufficient to satisfy the court of its standing to contest the forfeiture. 1998Monroe Street, 884 F.Supp. 1218, 1225-26 (C.D.Ill.1995); People v. $28,500 in U.S. Currency, 51 Cal.App.4th 447 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239, 251-52 (1996) ("A party seeking to challenge the government's forfeiture of money or property used in violation of federal law must first demonstrate an interest in the seized item sufficient to satisfy the court of its standing to contest the forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Commonly Known as 2030 East Monroe Streetgreen1 sentence1998Monroe Street, 884 F.Supp. 1218, 1225-26 (C.D.Ill.1995); People v. $28,500 in U.S. Currency, 51 Cal.App.4th 447 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239, 251-52 (1996) ("A party seeking to challenge the government's forfeiture of money or property used in violation of federal law must first demonstrate an interest in the seized item sufficient to satisfy the court of its standing to contest the forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Acevedo v. Burley
green
2 sentences1998Acevedo, 944 P.2d at 475 . 1998Acevedo, 944 P.2d at 475 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
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.