5 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meiners v. Bering Strait School Districtgreen1 sentence2021Meiners, 687 P.2d at 291-92, 302 . 110 The word limit itself must be read in light of the substantial compliance test of AS 15.45.550(1). | 1 | 1 |
Industrial Power & Lighting Corp. v. Western Modular Corp.green1 sentence1986Registration as a construction contractor under AS 08.18 requires: a registration fee, 6 a surety bond, 7 and public liability and property damage insurance. 8 Registration must be renewed annually. 9 In addition, no person registered under one name may act in the capacity of a contractor under any other name unless that name also is registered. 10 Registration was intended by the legislature to ensure “competence and financial responsibility in those who undertake work as contractors.” Sumner Development Corp. v. Shivers, 517 P.2d 757, 763 (Alaska 1974); see also Industrial Power, 623 P.2d at | 1 | 1 |
Sumner Development Corporation v. Shiversgreen1 sentence1986Registration as a construction contractor under AS 08.18 requires: a registration fee, 6 a surety bond, 7 and public liability and property damage insurance. 8 Registration must be renewed annually. 9 In addition, no person registered under one name may act in the capacity of a contractor under any other name unless that name also is registered. 10 Registration was intended by the legislature to ensure “competence and financial responsibility in those who undertake work as contractors.” Sumner Development Corp. v. Shivers, 517 P.2d 757, 763 (Alaska 1974); see also Industrial Power, 623 P.2d at | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rosalesgreen2 sentences1979Such identification alone, however, may constitute substantial compliance “only if the surrounding circumstances made the officers’ purpose clear to the occupants or showed that a demand for admittance would be futile.” People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299 , 66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 3 , 437 P.2d 489, 491 (1968). 1 We think the substantial compliance doctrine is sound. 1979Such identification alone, however, may constitute substantial compliance “only if the surrounding circumstances made the officers’ purpose clear to the occupants or showed that a demand for admittance would be futile.” People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299 , 66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 3 , 437 P.2d 489, 491 (1968). 1 We think the substantial compliance doctrine is sound. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Silides v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1986The court relied on our recognition of the substantial compliance doctrine in Silides v, Thomas, 559 P.2d 80 (Alaska 1977). 1986The trial court, after considering the requirements in AS 15.25 and AS 39.50, found that Frith’s declaration of candidacy “was completed and passed across the counter prior to the [statutory] deadline” and therefore “was appropriately filed.” 8 The court then concluded that Frith’s filing of a conflict-of-interest statement ten minutes after the statutory deadline was “timely” because the substantial compliance doctrine of Silides v. Thomas, 559 P.2d 80 (Alaska 1977), was applicable. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Nattrass v. State
green
1 sentence1977Counsel has also raised an issue similar to that discussed in Nattrass v. State, 554 P.2d 399 (Alaska 1976), contending that the defendant was not afforded an adequate right of allocution as provided by Criminal Rule 32(a). 1 The facts in this case are quite similar to those in Nattrass in which we found a minimal compliance with the rule but strongly recommended that trial judges: unequivocally bring home to the defendant that he has the right to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of his punishment. 2 Here, after hearing argument of counsel, the ju | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.