6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
TEGOSEAK v. Stategreen1 sentence2011(For a general discussion of this latter question, see our decision in Tegoseak v. State, 221 P.3d 345, 350-362 (Alaska App.2009).) Why we conclude that these issues are not preserved for appeal Under the law of appellate procedure, a litigant is not entitled to pursue a *431 claim on appeal unless that claim was presented to the lower court, 4 and unless the lower court issued a ruling on the merits of that claim. 5 Pierce's appeal requires us to examine what is meant by "presenting" a claim to the lower court. | 1 | 1 |
Todd v. Toddgreen1 sentence2004It simply announced that the preponderance standard applied, and did not explain that it was choosing that standard, or its rationale for citing that standard. 567 P.2d at 310 . [1] 540 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 1975). [2] Todd v. Todd, 989 P.2d 141, 143 (Alaska 1999); J.W. v. R.J., 951 P.2d 1206 , 1210 n. 3 (Alaska 1998); Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 , 989 n. 7 (Alaska 1989); Britt v. Britt, 567 P.2d 308, 310 (Alaska 1977). [3] While "clearly shown" is in our early cases, these precede Turner. | 1 | 1 |
Britt v. Brittgreen2 sentences2004It simply announced that the preponderance standard applied, and did not explain that it was choosing that standard, or its rationale for citing that standard. 567 P.2d at 310 . [1] 540 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 1975). [2] Todd v. Todd, 989 P.2d 141, 143 (Alaska 1999); J.W. v. R.J., 951 P.2d 1206 , 1210 n. 3 (Alaska 1998); Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 , 989 n. 7 (Alaska 1989); Britt v. Britt, 567 P.2d 308, 310 (Alaska 1977). [3] While "clearly shown" is in our early cases, these precede Turner. 2004It simply announced that the preponderance standard applied, and did not explain that it was choosing that standard, or its rationale for citing that standard. 567 P.2d at 310 . [1] 540 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 1975). [2] Todd v. Todd, 989 P.2d 141, 143 (Alaska 1999); J.W. v. R.J., 951 P.2d 1206 , 1210 n. 3 (Alaska 1998); Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 , 989 n. 7 (Alaska 1989); Britt v. Britt, 567 P.2d 308, 310 (Alaska 1977). [3] While "clearly shown" is in our early cases, these precede Turner. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Pannickgreen1 sentence2004It simply announced that the preponderance standard applied, and did not explain that it was choosing that standard, or its rationale for citing that standard. 567 P.2d at 310 . [1] 540 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 1975). [2] Todd v. Todd, 989 P.2d 141, 143 (Alaska 1999); J.W. v. R.J., 951 P.2d 1206 , 1210 n. 3 (Alaska 1998); Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 , 989 n. 7 (Alaska 1989); Britt v. Britt, 567 P.2d 308, 310 (Alaska 1977). [3] While "clearly shown" is in our early cases, these precede Turner. | 1 | 1 |
Isakson v. Rickeygreen1 sentence2001See Isakson, 550 P.2d at 362 . | 1 | 1 |
Abrams v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Lewis, 559 P.2d at 643 ; Abrams v. State, 534 P.2d 91, 94-95 (Alaska 1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence1998See Lewis, 559 P.2d at 643 ; Abrams v. State, 534 P.2d 91, 94-95 (Alaska 1975). | 1 | 1 |
Alaska Foods, Inc. v. American Manufacturer's Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence1972Although it is true that in the case of non-testimonial evidence there is no need to give deference to the trial judge’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, this court, in Alaska Foods, Inc. v. American Manufacturer’s Mutual Insurance Co., 482 P.2d 842, 848 (Alaska 1971), rejected the argument that a more rigorous standard of review should be applied to non-demeanor evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jw v. Rj
green
1 sentence2004It simply announced that the preponderance standard applied, and did not explain that it was choosing that standard, or its rationale for citing that standard. 567 P.2d at 310 . [1] 540 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 1975). [2] Todd v. Todd, 989 P.2d 141, 143 (Alaska 1999); J.W. v. R.J., 951 P.2d 1206 , 1210 n. 3 (Alaska 1998); Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 , 989 n. 7 (Alaska 1989); Britt v. Britt, 567 P.2d 308, 310 (Alaska 1977). [3] While "clearly shown" is in our early cases, these precede Turner. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Buness v. Gillen
green
1 sentence2004It simply announced that the preponderance standard applied, and did not explain that it was choosing that standard, or its rationale for citing that standard. 567 P.2d at 310 . [1] 540 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 1975). [2] Todd v. Todd, 989 P.2d 141, 143 (Alaska 1999); J.W. v. R.J., 951 P.2d 1206 , 1210 n. 3 (Alaska 1998); Buness v. Gillen, 781 P.2d 985 , 989 n. 7 (Alaska 1989); Britt v. Britt, 567 P.2d 308, 310 (Alaska 1977). [3] While "clearly shown" is in our early cases, these precede Turner. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Commonwealth v. Chacko
green
2 sentences1995Although conceding that the vast majority of cases uphold the admission of similar exhibits under like circumstances, Hilbish proposes that we adopt the rigorous standard of admission articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Chacko, 480 Pa. 504 , 391 A.2d 999 (1978). 1995Although conceding that the vast majority of cases uphold the admission of similar exhibits under like circumstances, Hilbish proposes that we adopt the rigorous standard of admission articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Chacko, 480 Pa. 504 , 391 A.2d 999 (1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.