Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guin v. Hagreen2 sentences1998See Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). . 1998It is our duty to adopt the most persuasive rule of law "in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). | 2 | 3 |
Decker v. Finkgreen1 sentence2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc.green2 sentences2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial 2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska v. John Does 1-6green1 sentence2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaskagreen1 sentence2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
John's Heating Service v. Lambgreen2 sentences2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial 2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLPgreen2 sentences2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial 2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 1 |
Larsen v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen1 sentence2016We will adopt the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”12 “This 7 Id. (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 8 Larsen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 993 P.2d 428, 431 (Alaska 1999); see also Alaska Hous. | 1 | 1 |
John v. Bakergreen1 sentence2016We will adopt the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”12 “This 7 Id. (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 8 Larsen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 993 P.2d 428, 431 (Alaska 1999); see also Alaska Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Boone v. Gipsongreen1 sentence1998See Boone v. Gipson, 920 P.2d 746, 748 (Alaska 1996). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pedersen v. Zielski
green
1 sentence2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Reasner v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
green
1 sentence2019“We review constitutional questions de novo, adopting the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007). 9 See, e.g., Reasner, 394 P.3d at 614 ; Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1278 (Alaska 2013); Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6, 141 P.3d 719, 725 (Alaska 2006); Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005); John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024, 1033 (2002); Pedersen v. Zielski, 822 P.2d 903 , 907 n.4 (Alaska 1991). -7- 7411 The purpose of a pretrial | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ruckle v. Anchorage School District
green
1 sentence2016We will adopt the most persuasive rule of law in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”12 “This 7 Id. (quoting John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 744 (Alaska 1999)). 8 Larsen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 993 P.2d 428, 431 (Alaska 1999); see also Alaska Hous. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.