5 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 2019–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garcetti v. Ceballosgreen2 sentences2025Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 527-28 (2022). 23 Id. (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 423 (2006)). 24 Id. - 17 - 7755 efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 25 If the State’s “legitimate countervailing interests are sufficiently strong,” the court will uphold the State’s restriction. 26 The second step of the inquiry is dispositive in this case. 2025Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 527-28 (2022). 23 Id. (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 423 (2006)). 24 Id. - 17 - 7755 efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 25 If the State’s “legitimate countervailing interests are sufficiently strong,” the court will uphold the State’s restriction. 26 The second step of the inquiry is dispositive in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.green2 sentences2025Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 527-28 (2022). 23 Id. (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 423 (2006)). 24 Id. - 17 - 7755 efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 25 If the State’s “legitimate countervailing interests are sufficiently strong,” the court will uphold the State’s restriction. 26 The second step of the inquiry is dispositive in this case. 2025Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 527-28 (2022). 23 Id. (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 423 (2006)). 24 Id. - 17 - 7755 efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 25 If the State’s “legitimate countervailing interests are sufficiently strong,” the court will uphold the State’s restriction. 26 The second step of the inquiry is dispositive in this case. | 1 | 1 |
State of Alaska v. Kenneth John Jouppigreen1 sentence2025The second step of analysis under the Excessive Fines Clause requires us to determine whether the forfeiture was “excessive.”55 The Court has emphasized that 52 See Jouppi II, 519 P.3d 653, 678-81 (Alaska App. 2022) (Mannheimer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (concluding that legislative history demonstrates that legislature “viewed the mandatory forfeiture of aircraft as a severe but necessary penalty to punish and deter the smuggling of alcoholic beverages into rural Alaska”). 53 See AS 04.16.220(e). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hcs v. Capa
green
1 sentence2025The bracketed alteration in Baron’s text (“whether” instead of “that”) follows H.C.S.’s statement of the second step in the analysis: “Once the petitioner demonstrates changed circumstances, the court must decide whether the existing appointment is in the ward’s best interests.” H.C.S., 42 P.3d at 1099 . -16- 7753 Whether circumstances have materially changed is a fact-specific determination.52 In the similar contexts of child custody modification and removal of guardians for incapacitated persons, we have held that changes in a parent’s ability to provide care for a child can constitute mater | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Huit v. Ashwater Burns, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Because many of her attacks against these opinions entail weighing them against each other and other evidence in the record, we address all of those criticisms in deciding at the third stage whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 24 Huit, 372 P.3d at 907 . 25 Id. at 908 (quoting AS 23.30.010(a)). 26 Id. at 907 . -20- 7549 whether these amendments altered the standards for evaluating the employer’s evidence at the second step of the presumption analysis.27 However, we did observe that “something cannot be ‘the substantial cause’ of a disability if it is not a cause a 2021Because many of her attacks against these opinions entail weighing them against each other and other evidence in the record, we address all of those criticisms in deciding at the third stage whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 24 Huit, 372 P.3d at 907 . 25 Id. at 908 (quoting AS 23.30.010(a)). 26 Id. at 907 . -20- 7549 whether these amendments altered the standards for evaluating the employer’s evidence at the second step of the presumption analysis.27 However, we did observe that “something cannot be ‘the substantial cause’ of a disability if it is not a cause a | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Doe v. Pataki
green
1 sentence2019Doe v. Pataki , 120 F.3d 1263 , 1266 (2d Cir. 1997). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.