Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
French v. Jadon, Inc.green1 sentence2016French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 28 (Alaska 1996). | 1 | 1 |
DeNardo v. GCI Communication Corp.green1 sentence2016See DeNardo v. GCI Commc’n Corp., 983 P.2d 1288, 1292 (Alaska 1999) (“A punitive damages claim cannot stand alone.”). 32 See Castle Props., Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene, 347 P.3d 990, 997 (Alaska 2015) (“Under Alaska law, every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing . . . .”). 33 Norcon, 971 P.2d at 167 . - 11 - 7082 An employee’s right to report sexual harassment without fear of retaliation by the employer is grounded in the same public policy we discussed in Norcon, made explicit in the same statute, AS 18.80.220.34 And state public policy provides the | 1 | 1 |
Castle Properties, Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarenegreen1 sentence2016See DeNardo v. GCI Commc’n Corp., 983 P.2d 1288, 1292 (Alaska 1999) (“A punitive damages claim cannot stand alone.”). 32 See Castle Props., Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene, 347 P.3d 990, 997 (Alaska 2015) (“Under Alaska law, every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing . . . .”). 33 Norcon, 971 P.2d at 167 . - 11 - 7082 An employee’s right to report sexual harassment without fear of retaliation by the employer is grounded in the same public policy we discussed in Norcon, made explicit in the same statute, AS 18.80.220.34 And state public policy provides the | 1 | 1 |
Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowskigreen1 sentence2016See DeNardo v. GCI Commc’n Corp., 983 P.2d 1288, 1292 (Alaska 1999) (“A punitive damages claim cannot stand alone.”). 32 See Castle Props., Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene, 347 P.3d 990, 997 (Alaska 2015) (“Under Alaska law, every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing . . . .”). 33 Norcon, 971 P.2d at 167 . - 11 - 7082 An employee’s right to report sexual harassment without fear of retaliation by the employer is grounded in the same public policy we discussed in Norcon, made explicit in the same statute, AS 18.80.220.34 And state public policy provides the | 1 | 1 |
Rodgers v. Raygreen1 sentence2000Furthermore, ... an endless reopening of convictions, with its continuing underlying implication that perhaps the defendant can escape from corrective sanctions after all, [is potentially inconsistent] with the aim of rehabilitating offenders. 457 P.2d 281, 236 (Alaska 1969). 5 For these reasons, the Alaska Supreme 'Court restricted a defendant's ability to pursue successive petitions for post-conviction relief This restriction took the form of a rule requiring joinder of all of a defendant's post-conviction claims in a single litigation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kastigar v. United States
green
2 sentences1992In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the demands of the fifth amendment can be satisfied by “use and derivative use immunity” — a form of immunity prohibiting the use of immunized testimony or any information derived therefrom against the witness from whom it was compelled. 3 Since this form of immunity protects only against the use of compelled testimony and information derived therefrom, it does not categorically bar the state from prosecuting an immunized witness for crimes as to which the witness was c 1992In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the demands of the fifth amendment can be satisfied by “use and derivative use immunity” — a form of immunity prohibiting the use of immunized testimony or any information derived therefrom against the witness from whom it was compelled. 3 Since this form of immunity protects only against the use of compelled testimony and information derived therefrom, it does not categorically bar the state from prosecuting an immunized witness for crimes as to which the witness was c | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Copelin v. State
green
1 sentence1997We further held that a failure by the police to allow an arres-tee such an opportunity required the suppression of the “subsequent evidence, whether in the form of the test results or the refusal to submit to [the test].” Id. at 1215 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Whisenhunt v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence1997In Whisenhunt , we extended this rule and exclusionary remedy to civil license revocation proceedings such as the one at issue in this case. 746 P.2d at 1299 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1992In State v. Gonzalez, 825 P.2d 920 (Alaska App.1992), we held a broader form of immunity — transactional immunity — to be the minimal level of protection necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Alaska Constitution’s privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.