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 2021–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Patrick Dale Burton-Hill v. State of Alaska, Jerald Dwayne Burton Jr. v. State of Alaska, Marcus Djaun Howard v. State of Alaskagreen1 sentence2025Id. at 150-51 . 10 As we noted in the footnote above, the prosecutor may have been confused about the difference between a Mann instruction and a former pattern jury instruction, which was itself replaced a number of years ago and recently disapproved of by this Court in Burton-Hill, 569 P.3d at 44-45. –4– 2808 the instruction to the jury and used it to argue that Walker intended to kill the woman he stabbed. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Because there is no dispute about these facts, you also must accept them as true.[48] 45 Id. at 167 . 46 Marshall v. State, 436 P.3d 1065, 1069 (Alaska App. 2018). 47 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.16A (2012). 48 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.16B (2012). – 12 – 2779 The “use note” for the pattern jury instruction does not assert that trial courts must obtain a personal on-the record waiver before giving the instruction. 49 The distinction between judicially noticed facts and stipulated facts is also reflected in our recent decision, Alvarado v. State. 50 Alvarado invol | 1 | 1 |
Silvers v. Silversgreen2 sentences2024But as explained above, a defendant who receives money is liable for conversion if it causes interference with a superior possessory interest.68 We again refer to the pattern jury instruction for § 237”); compare id. § 229, with id. § 237 (“One in possession of a chattel as bailee or otherwise who, on demand, refuses without proper qualification to surrender it to another entitled to its immediate possession, is subject to liability for its conversion.”). 63 Id. § 229 cmt. a. 64 Id. § 229 cmt. b. 65 Id. § 229 cmt. c. 66 Id. § 229 cmt. b; see also id. § 222A cmt. a (explaining that conversion o 2024But as explained above, a defendant who receives money is liable for conversion if it causes interference with a superior possessory interest.68 We again refer to the pattern jury instruction for § 237”); compare id. § 229, with id. § 237 (“One in possession of a chattel as bailee or otherwise who, on demand, refuses without proper qualification to surrender it to another entitled to its immediate possession, is subject to liability for its conversion.”). 63 Id. § 229 cmt. a. 64 Id. § 229 cmt. b. 65 Id. § 229 cmt. c. 66 Id. § 229 cmt. b; see also id. § 222A cmt. a (explaining that conversion o | 1 | 1 |
DeYonge v. Nana/Marriottgreen1 sentence2021DeYonge v. NANA/Marriott, 1 P.3d 90, 98 (Alaska 2000). -28- 7566 Under the Act employers are required to provide medical care for work-related injuries.45 Within two years of the injury date, employers are required to pay for all medical care that is reasonable and necessary.46 When the treatment occurs more than two years after the injury, the Board “is not limited to reviewing the reasonableness and necessity of the particular treatment sought, but has some latitude to choose among reasonable alternatives.”47 Mitchell suggests that we should reweigh the evidence, citing a pattern jury instru | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Calantas v. State
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 150-51 . 10 As we noted in the footnote above, the prosecutor may have been confused about the difference between a Mann instruction and a former pattern jury instruction, which was itself replaced a number of years ago and recently disapproved of by this Court in Burton-Hill, 569 P.3d at 44-45. –4– 2808 the instruction to the jury and used it to argue that Walker intended to kill the woman he stabbed. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rae v. State
green
1 sentence2024Because there is no dispute about these facts, you also must accept them as true.[48] 45 Id. at 167 . 46 Marshall v. State, 436 P.3d 1065, 1069 (Alaska App. 2018). 47 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.16A (2012). 48 Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.16B (2012). – 12 – 2779 The “use note” for the pattern jury instruction does not assert that trial courts must obtain a personal on-the record waiver before giving the instruction. 49 The distinction between judicially noticed facts and stipulated facts is also reflected in our recent decision, Alvarado v. State. 50 Alvarado invol | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jerry B. v. Sally B.
green
1 sentence2023Even assuming the phrase “within 31 See Jerry B. v. Sally B., 377 P.3d 916 , 926 n.33 (Alaska 2016) (“Neither we nor the court of appeals has ever evaluated whether ‘within the observation’ means ‘observation range’ or ‘actual observation,’ and the pattern jury instruction’s use note explicitly highlights the lack of clarity on this issue and takes no position on ‘whether the child . . . must observe the act of masturbation.’” (citing Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction AS 11.41.458 (rev. 2009))). – 19 – 2757 the observation of” means “actual observation,” the second question is whether t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.