6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lengele v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Counsel’s objections must be specific enough to clearly bring into focus the precise nature of the asserted error.”27 Jones-Nelson alerted the trial court that there was no need to provide further instruction on self-defense beyond the pattern instructions and that there was a danger that doing so would be “an inaccurate or incorrect statement of the law” resulting from 24 374 P.3d 395, 428 (Alaska 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Robart v. State, 82 P.3d 787, 795 (Alaska App. 2004)). 25 Lengele v. State, 295 P.3d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 2013); see also Saxton v. Harris, 395 P.2d 71, 73 (Alas | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Knightgreen1 sentence2022Counsel’s objections must be specific enough to clearly bring into focus the precise nature of the asserted error.”27 Jones-Nelson alerted the trial court that there was no need to provide further instruction on self-defense beyond the pattern instructions and that there was a danger that doing so would be “an inaccurate or incorrect statement of the law” resulting from 24 374 P.3d 395, 428 (Alaska 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Robart v. State, 82 P.3d 787, 795 (Alaska App. 2004)). 25 Lengele v. State, 295 P.3d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 2013); see also Saxton v. Harris, 395 P.2d 71, 73 (Alas | 1 | 1 |
Saxton v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2022Counsel’s objections must be specific enough to clearly bring into focus the precise nature of the asserted error.”27 Jones-Nelson alerted the trial court that there was no need to provide further instruction on self-defense beyond the pattern instructions and that there was a danger that doing so would be “an inaccurate or incorrect statement of the law” resulting from 24 374 P.3d 395, 428 (Alaska 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Robart v. State, 82 P.3d 787, 795 (Alaska App. 2004)). 25 Lengele v. State, 295 P.3d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 2013); see also Saxton v. Harris, 395 P.2d 71, 73 (Alas 2022Counsel’s objections must be specific enough to clearly bring into focus the precise nature of the asserted error.”27 Jones-Nelson alerted the trial court that there was no need to provide further instruction on self-defense beyond the pattern instructions and that there was a danger that doing so would be “an inaccurate or incorrect statement of the law” resulting from 24 374 P.3d 395, 428 (Alaska 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Robart v. State, 82 P.3d 787, 795 (Alaska App. 2004)). 25 Lengele v. State, 295 P.3d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 2013); see also Saxton v. Harris, 395 P.2d 71, 73 (Alas | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Counsel’s objections must be specific enough to clearly bring into focus the precise nature of the asserted error.”27 Jones-Nelson alerted the trial court that there was no need to provide further instruction on self-defense beyond the pattern instructions and that there was a danger that doing so would be “an inaccurate or incorrect statement of the law” resulting from 24 374 P.3d 395, 428 (Alaska 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Robart v. State, 82 P.3d 787, 795 (Alaska App. 2004)). 25 Lengele v. State, 295 P.3d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 2013); see also Saxton v. Harris, 395 P.2d 71, 73 (Alas | 1 | 1 |
Robart v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Counsel’s objections must be specific enough to clearly bring into focus the precise nature of the asserted error.”27 Jones-Nelson alerted the trial court that there was no need to provide further instruction on self-defense beyond the pattern instructions and that there was a danger that doing so would be “an inaccurate or incorrect statement of the law” resulting from 24 374 P.3d 395, 428 (Alaska 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Robart v. State, 82 P.3d 787, 795 (Alaska App. 2004)). 25 Lengele v. State, 295 P.3d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 2013); see also Saxton v. Harris, 395 P.2d 71, 73 (Alas | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Safeway, Inc.green1 sentence2013But given the way the immunity statute is written, Giani does not enjoy complete immunity for making a report of harm; the statutory immunity granted is qualified by a good faith requirement.9 And as demonstrated by this case, the existence 5 Olson v. City of Hooper Bay, 251 P.3d 1024, 1033 (Alaska 2011). 6 Miller v. Safeway, Inc., 170 P.3d 655, 658 (Alaska 2007). 7 AS 47.24.010(a). 8 AS 47.24.010(c). 9 AS 47.24.120(a) (“A person who in good faith makes a report under (continued...) -30- 6756 of good faith is a factual question,10 and if the subject of the report of harm is able to raise a gen | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. City of Hooper Baygreen1 sentence2013But given the way the immunity statute is written, Giani does not enjoy complete immunity for making a report of harm; the statutory immunity granted is qualified by a good faith requirement.9 And as demonstrated by this case, the existence 5 Olson v. City of Hooper Bay, 251 P.3d 1024, 1033 (Alaska 2011). 6 Miller v. Safeway, Inc., 170 P.3d 655, 658 (Alaska 2007). 7 AS 47.24.010(a). 8 AS 47.24.010(c). 9 AS 47.24.120(a) (“A person who in good faith makes a report under (continued...) -30- 6756 of good faith is a factual question,10 and if the subject of the report of harm is able to raise a gen | 1 | 1 |
Smart v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Smart v. State, 146 P.3d 15, 30-31 (Alaska App.2006) (citing and discussing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 LEd.2d 368 (1970)). 111 . - Winship, 397 U.S. at 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 . 112 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2004The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED. . 580 P.2d 1174, 1175 (Alaska 1978). . | 1 | 1 |
Pavlik v. State, Department of Community & Regional Affairsgreen1 sentence1993Relying on our analysis of the doctrine of laches found in Pavlik v. State, 637 P.2d 1045, 1047 (Alaska 1981) the Board held that application of laches bars Wausau from obtaining the benefit of any social security benefits offset. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2021According to the prosecutor, the only way for the defense to obtain any information about Brady material that might be contained in these files was by filing a motion for in camera review under Booth v. 30 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). – 17 – 2714 State.31 In other words, the State took the position that the prosecution has no independent duty to learn of Brady material that might be contained in a police officer’s personnel file. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2009Smart v. State, 146 P.3d 15, 30-31 (Alaska App.2006) (citing and discussing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 LEd.2d 368 (1970)). 111 . - Winship, 397 U.S. at 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 . 112 . 2009Smart v. State, 146 P.3d 15, 30-31 (Alaska App.2006) (citing and discussing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 LEd.2d 368 (1970)). 111 . - Winship, 397 U.S. at 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 . 112 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Johnson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF STATE
green
1 sentence1993The Colorado court said: [a] statute cannot stand in the way of waiver or equitable estoppel when the facts demand their application in the interest of justice and right. 761 P.2d 1140 at 1146 . 15 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.