party raising claim in Alaska

2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on

2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on

2023Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003))). -104- 7646 “obvious[ly] . . . military personnel share the same employer, the same noble mission, the same workplace, and the same shopping and medical facilities”; and “ ‘communities of interest’ is a synonym for areas that are socio-economically integrated,” such that “Eagle River and South Anchorage are not separate communities of interest that cannot be combined with other areas of Anchorage and cannot be split.” The Board’s argument somewhat misrepresents the court’s discussion.

2005As we recently reaffirmed in Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004), we do not lightly overrule our precedent: [W]e have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: "We will overrule a prior decision only when clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent.” Id. (quoting State, Commercial

2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on

2023Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (“The stare decisis doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality: ‘ “no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.” ’ ” (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175 (Alaska 1993))). 230 See id. (“In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling: ‘We will overrule a prior decision on

2014We interpret statutes “according to reason, practicality, and common sense, considering the meaning of the statute’s language, its legislative history, and its 14 (...continued) at 1001 (same); Schikora v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 7 P.3d 938, 944-45 (Alaska 2000) (same); Church v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125, 1130 (Alaska 1999) (same); State, Dep’t of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621, 628 (Alaska 1993) (same). 15 “We have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling

2014We interpret statutes “according to reason, practicality, and common sense, considering the meaning of the statute’s language, its legislative history, and its 14 (...continued) at 1001 (same); Schikora v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 7 P.3d 938, 944-45 (Alaska 2000) (same); Church v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125, 1130 (Alaska 1999) (same); State, Dep’t of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621, 628 (Alaska 1993) (same). 15 “We have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling

2014Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 303 P.3d 431, 447 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted). -7- 1476 purpose.”16 A commonsense interpretation of former AS 43.23.008(c), and the interpretation we adopted in Ross I,17 is that the Alaska Legislature intended the statute to bar applicants from collecting PFDs until they had re-established the requisite connection with the State of Alaska necessary to be eligible for a dividend.

2014We interpret statutes “according to reason, practicality, and common sense, considering the meaning of the statute’s language, its legislative history, and its 14 (...continued) at 1001 (same); Schikora v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 7 P.3d 938, 944-45 (Alaska 2000) (same); Church v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125, 1130 (Alaska 1999) (same); State, Dep’t of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621, 628 (Alaska 1993) (same). 15 “We have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling

2007"In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling." Id. at 943. [63] Op. at 1019. [64] Op. at 1019 (citing Election Pamphlet for 1987 Initiative Proposal No. 2 (87TOR2) (statement in support)). [65] Op. at 1021. [66] The history of the initiative, including the explanation on the ballot, is not so clear on the reduction topic as to nullify the words of AS 09.17.080(c). [67] See McDougald v. Garber, 73 N.Y.2d 246

2007"In recognizing the importance of this doctrine, we have consistently held that a party raising a claim controlled by an existing decision bears a heavy threshold burden of showing compelling reasons for reconsidering the prior ruling." Id. at 943. [63] Op. at 1019. [64] Op. at 1019 (citing Election Pamphlet for 1987 Initiative Proposal No. 2 (87TOR2) (statement in support)). [65] Op. at 1021. [66] The history of the initiative, including the explanation on the ballot, is not so clear on the reduction topic as to nullify the words of AS 09.17.080(c). [67] See McDougald v. Garber, 73 N.Y.2d 246

2005Johnson, 636 P.2d at 66 ("[T]he decision to sign is operational and hence not immune.”); State v. I'Anson, 529 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1974). 106 .

1997See Stormont v. Astoria Ltd., 889 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1995); Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 548 P.2d 279, 294 (Alaska 1976) (“The party raising the affirmative defense generally bears the burden of proof as to that issue.”) cited in State Dep’t of Public Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Fann, 864 P.2d 533, 538 (Alaska 1993).

1997See Stormont v. Astoria Ltd., 889 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1995); Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 548 P.2d 279, 294 (Alaska 1976) (“The party raising the affirmative defense generally bears the burden of proof as to that issue.”) cited in State Dep’t of Public Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Fann, 864 P.2d 533, 538 (Alaska 1993).

1997See Stormont v. Astoria Ltd., 889 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 1995); Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 548 P.2d 279, 294 (Alaska 1976) (“The party raising the affirmative defense generally bears the burden of proof as to that issue.”) cited in State Dep’t of Public Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Fann, 864 P.2d 533, 538 (Alaska 1993).