provision rule (Alaska) · Go Syfert
← Alaska issues

provision rule in Alaska

5 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1974–1998 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen
scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976).

1984Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976).

11
Allen v. Bussellgreen
alaska · 1976 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
1 sentence

1978As we observed in Allen v. Bussell, 558 P.2d 496, 502 (Alaska 1976), Rule 60(b)(6), the only provision of this rule arguably applicable to Miracle’s motion, is “not intended to be used as a substitute for proper litigation of a case.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Flannery v. Flannery green
alaska · 1997
1 sentence

1998Instead, it explains that debt does not justify a reduction in child support because "[t]he obligation to provide child support is more important than the obligation to fulfill most other obligations.” Id.

11998–1998
Evron v. Gilo green
alaska · 1989
1 sentence

1991In all other instances, however, the provisions of all other civil rules shall remain in full force and effect. [5] In Evron v. Gilo, 777 P.2d 182 (Alaska 1989), we addressed the superior court's error in placing a case on the inactive calendar too early.

11991–1991
Williams v. United States green
scotus · 1897
2 sentences

1974Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 389 , 18 S.Ct. 92 , 42 L.Ed. 509 [1897] ; United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229 , 61 S.Ct. 463 , 85 L.Ed. 788 [1941], The provision of the rule, in view of the many statutes and regulations, is for the benefit of the defendant and is not intended to cause a dismissal of the indictment, but simply to provide a means by which he can be properly informed without danger to the prosecution. 18 U.S.C.A.

1974Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 389 , 18 S.Ct. 92 , 42 L.Ed. 509 [1897] ; United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229 , 61 S.Ct. 463 , 85 L.Ed. 788 [1941], The provision of the rule, in view of the many statutes and regulations, is for the benefit of the defendant and is not intended to cause a dismissal of the indictment, but simply to provide a means by which he can be properly informed without danger to the prosecution. 18 U.S.C.A.

11974–1974
United States v. Hutcheson green
scotus · 1941
2 sentences

1974Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 389 , 18 S.Ct. 92 , 42 L.Ed. 509 [1897] ; United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229 , 61 S.Ct. 463 , 85 L.Ed. 788 [1941], The provision of the rule, in view of the many statutes and regulations, is for the benefit of the defendant and is not intended to cause a dismissal of the indictment, but simply to provide a means by which he can be properly informed without danger to the prosecution. 18 U.S.C.A.

1974Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 389 , 18 S.Ct. 92 , 42 L.Ed. 509 [1897] ; United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 229 , 61 S.Ct. 463 , 85 L.Ed. 788 [1941], The provision of the rule, in view of the many statutes and regulations, is for the benefit of the defendant and is not intended to cause a dismissal of the indictment, but simply to provide a means by which he can be properly informed without danger to the prosecution. 18 U.S.C.A.

11974–1974

Where else courts name it

CA 121 (1890–2025) TX 103 (1890–2025) OH 96 (1917–2026) PA 65 (1907–2020) NY 58 (1854–2023) FL 49 (1942–2024) IL 48 (1898–2026) MA 34 (1923–2019) MI 30 (1894–2026) UT 21 (1975–2024) NJ 20 (1950–2025) MO 19 (1904–2018) WA 17 (1893–2026) IA 16 (1896–2024) MN 15 (1916–2017) MD 15 (1933–2019) GA 14 (1911–2017) SC 14 (1905–2021) AL 14 (1901–2013) OR 14 (1943–2026) LA 14 (1936–2015) MS 14 (1922–2021) CO 13 (1905–2022) NM 13 (1937–2021) OK 12 (1918–2022) AR 12 (1912–2022) WI 12 (1925–2022) CT 12 (1932–2016) TN 12 (1902–2022) NC 10 (1960–2025) VA 9 (1974–2024) IN 9 (1913–2024) KY 8 (1903–2007) AZ 8 (1962–2024) NH 7 (1977–2024) WV 7 (1932–2018) ID 7 (1942–2012) DE 7 (1967–2024) VT 6 (2015–2021) KS 6 (1913–1997) HI 6 (1902–2010) WY 5 (1923–2013) AK 5 (1974–1998) NE 5 (1920–2015) DC 5 (1982–2014) ND 5 (1909–2011) NV 4 (1970–2023) SD 3 (1970–1994) RI 3 (1998–2013) PR 2 (1954–1965) MT 2 (2012–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check