privity requirement in Alaska

1992See Briggs, 732 P.2d at 1082 (the Department of Public Safety and the state were in privity because the general rule is that litigation by one agency is binding on other agencies of the same government).

1990Privity exists between different agencies of the same government unless “there are important differences in the authority of the respective agencies.” Briggs v. State, 732 P.2d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 1987).

2021We first address whether this suit and the two on which the superior court relied for res judicata — the 2005 Carnahan suit and the 2014 Borough suit — involved 17 Conitz v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 325 P.3d 501, 507 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 132 P.3d 818, 820-21 (Alaska 2006)). 18 Patterson, 303 P.3d at 497 (quoting Angleton v. Cox, 238 P.3d 610, 614 (Alaska 2010)). 19 Strong v. Williams, 435 P.3d 872, 875 (Alaska 2018) (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2021We first address whether this suit and the two on which the superior court relied for res judicata — the 2005 Carnahan suit and the 2014 Borough suit — involved 17 Conitz v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 325 P.3d 501, 507 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 132 P.3d 818, 820-21 (Alaska 2006)). 18 Patterson, 303 P.3d at 497 (quoting Angleton v. Cox, 238 P.3d 610, 614 (Alaska 2010)). 19 Strong v. Williams, 435 P.3d 872, 875 (Alaska 2018) (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2021We first address whether this suit and the two on which the superior court relied for res judicata — the 2005 Carnahan suit and the 2014 Borough suit — involved 17 Conitz v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 325 P.3d 501, 507 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 132 P.3d 818, 820-21 (Alaska 2006)). 18 Patterson, 303 P.3d at 497 (quoting Angleton v. Cox, 238 P.3d 610, 614 (Alaska 2010)). 19 Strong v. Williams, 435 P.3d 872, 875 (Alaska 2018) (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2021We first address whether this suit and the two on which the superior court relied for res judicata — the 2005 Carnahan suit and the 2014 Borough suit — involved 17 Conitz v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 325 P.3d 501, 507 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 132 P.3d 818, 820-21 (Alaska 2006)). 18 Patterson, 303 P.3d at 497 (quoting Angleton v. Cox, 238 P.3d 610, 614 (Alaska 2010)). 19 Strong v. Williams, 435 P.3d 872, 875 (Alaska 2018) (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

1990A. The privity requirement does not have a general definition; rather “it is a shorthand way of expressing assurance that the non-party has had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and that its rights and interests have been protected.” Alaska Foods, Inc. v. Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd., 768 P.2d 117, 121 (Alaska 1989).

1976Justice Peter's separate opinion in Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal. Rptr. 17, 24 , 403 P.2d 145, 152 (1965), persuasively establishes that the cleavage between economic loss and other types of harm is a false one, that each species of harm can constitute the "overwhelming misfortune" in one's life which warrants judicial redress.

1976Justice Peter's separate opinion in Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal. Rptr. 17, 24 , 403 P.2d 145, 152 (1965), persuasively establishes that the cleavage between economic loss and other types of harm is a false one, that each species of harm can constitute the "overwhelming misfortune" in one's life which warrants judicial redress.

1970A similarly broad view of the privity requirement was taken by the Supreme Court of Oregon in McFadden v. McFadden, 239 Or. 76 , 396 P.2d 202, 204 (1964), where it was held: Although the concept of privity has frequently been called upon as an aid in determining who should be bound by a judgment, "privity" is not of much use as an analytical tool.

1970A similarly broad view of the privity requirement was taken by the Supreme Court of Oregon in McFadden v. McFadden, 239 Or. 76 , 396 P.2d 202, 204 (1964), where it was held: Although the concept of privity has frequently been called upon as an aid in determining who should be bound by a judgment, "privity" is not of much use as an analytical tool.