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 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smithart v. Stategreen2 sentences2019As a result of the ruling, Allison was not allowed to cross-examine any of the State’s 14 Kitchens v. State, 898 P.2d 443, 448, 451 (Alaska App. 1995); see also Smithart, 988 P.2d at 586 (holding that “[w]hen a trial court’s evidentiary rulings substantially infringe upon the right to present a defense, the court necessarily violates the defendant’s due process rights”). – 15 – 2651 experts about their knowledge of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or their knowledge that J.A.’s mother had been diagnosed with this syndrome. 2009Cf. Smithart, 988 P.2d at 586 ("When a trial court's evidentiary rulings substantially infringe upon the right to present a defense, the court necessarily violates the defendant's due process rights."); Keith, 612 P.2d at 982-83 ("If the superior court's refusal to admit the journal did, in fact, substantially limit Keith's opportunities to prove his innocence affirmatively, the due process right to a fair trial would have been denied him."). [35] 35. | 2 | 2 |
Ruggles Ex Rel. Estate of Mayer v. Growgreen2 sentences2016Tagaban v. City of Pelican, 358 P.3d 571, 575 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)). 22 Ruggles v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509, 512 (Alaska 1999) (explaining that a “consequence[] flowing from the fact that [the insurer] requested [the insured’s] attorneys not to present its claim for medical expenses” is that the insured “lost the right to present the claim”). -11- 7140 D. 2016Ruggles v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509, 512 (Alaska 1999) (explaining that a "consequence[] flowing from the fact that [the insurer] requested [the insured's] attorneys not to present its claim for medical expenses” is that the insured "lost the right to present the claim”). . | 2 | 2 |
Kitchens v. Stategreen1 sentence2019As a result of the ruling, Allison was not allowed to cross-examine any of the State’s 14 Kitchens v. State, 898 P.2d 443, 448, 451 (Alaska App. 1995); see also Smithart, 988 P.2d at 586 (holding that “[w]hen a trial court’s evidentiary rulings substantially infringe upon the right to present a defense, the court necessarily violates the defendant’s due process rights”). – 15 – 2651 experts about their knowledge of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or their knowledge that J.A.’s mother had been diagnosed with this syndrome. | 1 | 1 |
Tagaban v. City of Pelicangreen1 sentence2016Tagaban v. City of Pelican, 358 P.3d 571, 575 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)). 22 Ruggles v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509, 512 (Alaska 1999) (explaining that a “consequence[] flowing from the fact that [the insurer] requested [the insured’s] attorneys not to present its claim for medical expenses” is that the insured “lost the right to present the claim”). -11- 7140 D. | 1 | 1 |
Beal v. McGuiregreen1 sentence2016Tagaban v. City of Pelican, 358 P.3d 571, 575 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)). 22 Ruggles v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509, 512 (Alaska 1999) (explaining that a “consequence[] flowing from the fact that [the insurer] requested [the insured’s] attorneys not to present its claim for medical expenses” is that the insured “lost the right to present the claim”). -11- 7140 D. | 1 | 1 |
Keith v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Cf. Smithart, 988 P.2d at 586 ("When a trial court's evidentiary rulings substantially infringe upon the right to present a defense, the court necessarily violates the defendant's due process rights."); Keith, 612 P.2d at 982-83 ("If the superior court's refusal to admit the journal did, in fact, substantially limit Keith's opportunities to prove his innocence affirmatively, the due process right to a fair trial would have been denied him."). [35] 35. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montana v. Egelhoff
green
2 sentences2009Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 56-57 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 , 135 LEBd.2d 361 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citations omitted). 36 . 2009Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 56-57 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 , 135 LEBd.2d 361 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citations omitted). 36 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Nichols v. Eckert
green
2 sentences1997In Nichols, 504 P.2d at 1365 , the court said: "Where the nature and consequences of the charge are serious, ... the right to present witnesses on one's behalf is manifest...." Nichols, a teacher terminated for incompetency, was held to have the right to present her defense "by testimony and other evidence." Id. 1997In Nichols, 504 P.2d at 1365 , the court said: "Where the nature and consequences of the charge are serious, ... the right to present witnesses on one's behalf is manifest...." Nichols, a teacher terminated for incompetency, was held to have the right to present her defense "by testimony and other evidence." Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.