property violation in Alaska

2022We refer to them collectively as “Caswell” unless the context requires otherwise. 9 Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733, 735 (Alaska 1993). 10 McDowell v. Lenarduzzi, 546 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Alaska 1976). 11 See Shaible v. Fairbanks Med. & Surgical Clinic, Inc., 531 P.2d 1252, 1260 (Alaska 1975) (stating that superior court’s conclusion that “[FED] actions [can]not be used as a vehicle to litigate substantial rights or issues” was erroneous). -7- 7595 is occupying the property under a claim of right” or if interpretation of the lease itself is in dispute.12 But Caswell’s argument has no basis in Ala

2022We refer to them collectively as “Caswell” unless the context requires otherwise. 9 Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733, 735 (Alaska 1993). 10 McDowell v. Lenarduzzi, 546 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Alaska 1976). 11 See Shaible v. Fairbanks Med. & Surgical Clinic, Inc., 531 P.2d 1252, 1260 (Alaska 1975) (stating that superior court’s conclusion that “[FED] actions [can]not be used as a vehicle to litigate substantial rights or issues” was erroneous). -7- 7595 is occupying the property under a claim of right” or if interpretation of the lease itself is in dispute.12 But Caswell’s argument has no basis in Ala

2022We refer to them collectively as “Caswell” unless the context requires otherwise. 9 Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733, 735 (Alaska 1993). 10 McDowell v. Lenarduzzi, 546 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Alaska 1976). 11 See Shaible v. Fairbanks Med. & Surgical Clinic, Inc., 531 P.2d 1252, 1260 (Alaska 1975) (stating that superior court’s conclusion that “[FED] actions [can]not be used as a vehicle to litigate substantial rights or issues” was erroneous). -7- 7595 is occupying the property under a claim of right” or if interpretation of the lease itself is in dispute.12 But Caswell’s argument has no basis in Ala

2022We refer to them collectively as “Caswell” unless the context requires otherwise. 9 Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733, 735 (Alaska 1993). 10 McDowell v. Lenarduzzi, 546 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Alaska 1976). 11 See Shaible v. Fairbanks Med. & Surgical Clinic, Inc., 531 P.2d 1252, 1260 (Alaska 1975) (stating that superior court’s conclusion that “[FED] actions [can]not be used as a vehicle to litigate substantial rights or issues” was erroneous). -7- 7595 is occupying the property under a claim of right” or if interpretation of the lease itself is in dispute.12 But Caswell’s argument has no basis in Ala

2022Car Rental, 21 V.I. 157, 159 (Terr.

2020The test for material breach found in the Restatement (Second) of Property, characterized by the ALJ as a “broad standard,” provides that a landlord may terminate a lease if the tenant fails to perform a promise and the landlord is thereby “deprived of 9 McMullen v. Bell, 128 P.3d 186, 190 (Alaska 2006). 10 Alaskan Crude II, 441 P.3d at 401 . 11 Because the evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision under both tests, we need not decide today whether one is more appropriate than the other. -8- 7466 a significant inducement to the making of the lease [and] the tenant does not perform his prom

2019Like marital property interests, domestic partnership property interests do not vest until a relationship ends during the lifetime of the parties.9 7 See State v. W.P., 349 P.3d 181, 185 (Alaska App. 2015) (“[A] court [that] has subject-matter jurisdiction over a particular category of case . . . is required to adjudicate all such cases that are properly brought to it.” (emphasis in original)); Ohio v. Wyandotte Chems.

2011Casey v. Semco Energy, Inc., 92 P.3d 379, 386 (Alaska 2004). 18 .

2011The Restatement (First) of Restitution explains that "[where a person in a fiduciary relation to another acquires property, and the acquisition or retention of the property is in violation of his duty as fiduciary, he holds it upon a constructive trust for the other." Restatemznt (First) or Restitution § 190 (1937). 16 . 482 P.2d 834, 837 (Alaska 1971). 17 .

1987Nor am I persuaded by DeLisio's arguments that judicially compelled representation of an indigent without adequate compensation constitutes a taking of the appointed attorney's property in violation of the United States and Alaska Constitutions. [6] Essentially the same arguments which are now advanced by DeLisio were explicitly rejected in Wood , wherein we said simply that "an order requiring an attorney to represent a criminal defendant [does not] necessarily take that attorney's private property without just compensation," and noted that this holding was consistent with the "vast majority"

1987Nor am I persuaded by DeLisio's arguments that judicially compelled representation of an indigent without adequate compensation constitutes a taking of the appointed attorney's property in violation of the United States and Alaska Constitutions. [6] Essentially the same arguments which are now advanced by DeLisio were explicitly rejected in Wood , wherein we said simply that "an order requiring an attorney to represent a criminal defendant [does not] necessarily take that attorney's private property without just compensation," and noted that this holding was consistent with the "vast majority"