DOCSLIB.ORG

Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1991

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1991 YEAR IN REVIEW ALASKA SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS YEAR IN REVIEW 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .................................. 115 II. Administrative Law ............................ 115 III. Business Law ................................. 127 IV. Constitutional Law ............................. 137 A. Equal Protection ............................ 137 B. Double Jeopardy ............................ 139 C. Search and Seizure .......................... 141 D. Due Process ............................... 147 E. M iscellaneous .............................. 151 V. Employment Law .............................. 157 VI. Family Law .................................. 172 A. Child and Spousal Support .................... 173 B. Property Division ........................... 174 VII. Fish and Game Law ............................ 180 VIII. Procedure .................................... 185 A. Failure of Prosecution ........................ 186 B. Modification of Final Judgment ................. 188 C. Statute of Limitations ........................ 190 D. Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions .................. 196 E. Miscellaneous .............................. 198 IX. Property Law ................................. 203 X. Tax Law ..................................... 207 XI. Tort Law .................................... 211 A. Judicial Misconduct ......................... 212 114 ALASKA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:1 B. M alpractice ............................... 215 C. Negligence ................................ 217 D. Product Liability ............................ 223 E. Miscellaneous .............................. 225 XII. Criminal Law ................................. 230 A. Evidence ................................. 230 B. General Criminal Law ........................ 238 C. Criminal Procedure .......................... 252 D. Sentencing ................................ 265 Appendix A ........................................ 276 Appendix B ........................................ 278 19921 YEAR IN REVIEW ALASKA SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS YEAR IN REVIEW 1991 I. INTRODUCTION Year in Review contains brief summaries of selected decisions by the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals. Due to the volume of cases, not all cases decided by the courts have been reviewed. The authors have attempted to highlight decisions representing a departure from prior law or resolving issues of first impression. For easy reference, the opinions have been grouped into eleven categories, according to the general subject matter and import of their holdings rather than the nature of the underlying claims: administrative law, business law, constitutional law, employment law, family law, fish and game law, procedure, property law, tax law, tort law and criminal law. The criminal law section has been placed last because of its sheer volume of cases. In some instances, the eleven categories have been further divided into subcategories representing more specific areas of the law. Appendix A lists the cases that were omitted from this year's Review because they either applied well-settled principles or involved narrow holdings of limited import. Appendix B notes which Court of Appeals decisions have been granted certiorari by the Alaska Supreme Court. II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW In the area of administrative law, the Alaska Supreme Court decided ten cases challenging agency actions or regulations on a variety of procedural, statutory and constitutional grounds. In particular, the court was guided by a precise approach to statutory language in those cases involving agencies that exceeded the boundaries of their rulemaking authority or that sought to avoid certain statutorily prescribed responsibilities. In FairbanksNorth StarBorough School Districtv. NEA-Alaska, Inc.,' the supreme court held that a Department of Education regulation that entitles teachers employed for only fractions of a school year "which equal Copyright © 1992 by Alaska Law Review 1. 817 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1991). ALASKA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:1 two ful school terms ' to tenure conflicts with a statute that requires teachers to be employed "in the same district continuously for two full school years"3 in order to be considered for tenure.4 The superior court granted NEA-Alaska's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Department's regulation is valid.5 On appeal, the supreme court found that the language in the statute -- "continuously (employed) for two full school years"6 -- unambiguously precludes those who have only worked for a fraction of the school year.7 The court distinguished State v. Redman,8 which had held that a teacher working part-time could qualify for tenure under the statute because that teacher had been employed for two full school years.9 "The use of the word 'full' in the Alaska statute indicates the Alaska Legislature's intent to preclude a teacher from counting a portion of a year toward the two-year probationary period required for tenure."10 Warner v. State," a consolidation of three appeals dismissed by the superior court and the Alaska Real Estate Commission for untimely filing,12 declared section 64.295 of title 12 of the Alaska Administrative Code invalid "because it was not promulgated pursuant to a legislative grant of authority."' 3 Section 64.295 purported to establish a one year statute of 4 limitations for filing claims under the Real Estate Surety Fund Act.' The supreme court reversed the dismissals, holding that the Real Estate Commission lacked the authority to promulgate Section 64.295.'s The court opined that neither Alaska Statutes section 08.88.0816 nor section 2. ALASKA ADMIN. CODE tit. 4, § 18.900(b)(2) (Jan. 1991). 3. ALASKA STAT. § 14.20.150(a)(2) (1987) (emphasis added). 4. NEA-Alaska, 817 P.2d at 925. Teachers may be employed for only fractions of a school year for various reasons. For example, the student population may be different than what was originally predicted, or term teachers may leave because of illness or maternity leave. Id. 5. Id. 6. ALASKA STAT. § 14.20.150(a)(2) (1987). 7. NEA-Alaska, 817 P.2d at 926. 8. 491 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1971), aff'd on other grounds, 519 P.2d 760 (Alaska 1974). 9. NEA-Alaska, 817 P.2d at 926. 10. Id. In addition, the court opined that although interpreting the statute less strictly might attract a higher quality of teachers to Alaska, this decision is properly in the domain of the legislature, not the courts or the Department of Education. Id. 11. 819 P.2d 28 (Alaska 1991). 12. ALASKA ADMIN. CODE tit. 12, § 64.295 (July 1991). 13. Warner, 819 P.2d at 29, 33-34. 14. Id. at 29-30; see ALASKA STATuTES §§ 08.88.450-.495 (1991). 15. Warner, 819 P.2d at 33. 16. Alaska Statutes section 08.88.081 provides: "the commission shall adopt regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter." ALASKA STAT. § 08.88.081 (1991). 1992] YEAR IN REVIEW 08.88.111'" authorizes the institution of the one-year statute of limitations provision because neither statute actually appears in the Real Estate Surety Fund Act and both statutes relate only to the licensing powers of the Commission.' The court further noted that the Real Estate Surety Fund Act only sets forth the procedures to be followed in adjudicating surety fund claims, and that "the surety fund statutes do not confer a broad grant of rulemaking authority."'19 In the Matter of E.A.O.' defined the scope of certain administrative duties. The supreme court held that the Department of Health and Social Services ("DHSS") continues to have a responsibility for the medical expenses of children in its custody, even when the children are placed in their parents' homes. E.A.O., a child born prematurely due to her mother's alcohol abuse, was in the temporary legal custody of DHSS because of her parents' inability to pay her extensive medical expenses. 2' Although E.A.O.'s medical problems classified her as a "special needs case," the superior court nonetheless released E.A.O. to the custody of her parents, subject to the supervision of DHSS and ruled that DHSS would no longer be responsible for E.A.O.'s medical expenses.22 E.A.O.'s mother appealed only on the question of whether DHSS had the burden of paying E.A.O.'s medical expenses for the nine-month period when E.A.O. remained legally in the custody of the state, although residing at her parents' home.' In reversing the superior court, the supreme court noted "[w]e think it clear that the department is responsible for the medical costs of children in its custody, whether the children are placed at home or in a foster home."24 The court relied on Alaska Statutes section 47.10.084(a), which expressly states that the legal custodial relationship imposes the duty of paying medical costs on the department.'s The next two decisions in this area involved questions of the functional definition of an administrative appeal and when such an appeal will be deemed exhausted. In Diedrich v. City of Ketchikan,2 the plaintiff 17. Alaska Statutes section 08.88.111 provides: "the commission shall adopt procedural regulations describing (1) how it conducts an examination; (2) how a person applies to take an examination.... ." ALASKA STAT. § 08.88.111 (1991). 18. Warner, 819 P.2d at 31. 19. Id. at 32. 20. 816 P.2d 1352 (Alaska 1991). 21. Id. at 1353. 22. Id. at 1354. 23. Id. 24. Id. at 1356. 25. Id. at 1356-57; see ALASKA STAT. § 47.10.084(a) (1990). 26. 805 P.2d 362 (Alaska 1991). ALASKA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:1 claimed that the City of Ketchikan had deleted funding for his position of Utilities Engineer, resulting in his
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996
    YEAR IN REVIEW Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................. 167 II. A dm inistrative Law ................................................................. 167 A . Public Contracting .................. ..... ............. 167 B. Land Use and Resource Management ........................... 171 C. A dm inistrative Procedure ............................................... 175 III. Business Law ............................................................................ 176 IV . Civil Procedure ........................................................................ 178 A. Timeliness of Prosecution and Appeal .......................... 179 B . M odification of Judgm ent ............................................... 181 C. M iscellaneous .................................................................... 183 V . Constitutional Law .................................................................. 188 A . D ue Process ....................................................................... 188 B . D ouble Jeopardy .............................................................. 191 C. Right to Jury Trial ............................................................ 192 D . M iscellaneous .................................................................... 193 V I. Crim inal Law ............................................................................ 197 A . Constitutional Protections ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • STATE V. JENKINS--FIRST DISSENT
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE v. JENKINSÐFIRST DISSENT KATZ, J., dissenting. Both the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, it is undisputed that the initial stop of the defendant, Chris- topher Jenkins, for improperly changing lanes was rea- sonable and, therefore, valid under both of these provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Work of State Courts 2004, A
    3 4185 00319802 4 Examin ng the Work of State Courts, 2004 A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project I. x .I L. m m.rm Incoming :% imbm 9,911 93.514 38 522 Connectcut 36 450 Wlswnsin 55 138 NOnh Dakota 6.296 % lowa m 314 Sanh Dakota 6 277 lllinrx 96 320 Califomla 2d6 034 Kansas 18 527 Mnnewa 29 125 Y KF 180 .C74A m c. 4 Examining the Work of State Courts, 2004 ..- A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project __ . -__ -. mmm Edited by 15,mDm- Richard Y. Schauffler 1 Robert C. LaFountain ,omm -- Neal B. Kauder Shauna M. Strickland Court Statistics Project Staff and Contributors Richard Y. Schauffler, Director Fred L. Cheesrnan, Senior Court Research Associate Neal B. Kauder, Consultant, VisualResearch, Inc. Robert C. LaFountain, Court Management Consultant Shauna M. Strickland, Court Research Analyst Nicole L. Waters, Court Research Associate Brenda G. Otto, Program Specialist Library Mational Center for State Courts 300 Newport Ave. Williamsburg, VA 231 85 A joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics Project 0 Copyright 2005 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-253-0 Suggested Citation: R. Schauffler, R. LaFountain, N. Kauder, & S. Strickland, Examining tbe Work of State Courts, 2004: A National Perspectioefrom tbe Court Statistics Project (National Center for State Courts 2005) This report was developed under Grant 2003-BJ-CX-KI03Supplement # 01 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics : Acknowledgments 0 I ' The members of the Court Statistics Project do not necessarily represent the policies of (CSP) gratefully acknowledge assistance and that agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeals Staff Attorney Requires Administration and Procedure
    The Position and Organization The Alaska Court of Appeals invites Train and supervise law clerks when they applications for a Court of Appeals Staff perform the technical reviews of draft court Attorney I or II to be based in either decisions, and when the law clerks check legal Anchorage or Fairbanks. Under general briefs submitted by attorneys to ensure they direction of the Chief Judge, the incumbent conform to the requirements of the Appellate will perform legal work for the judges of the Rules. Court of Appeals. In addition, in consultation with the Chief Judge and other judges of the Court, the staff attorney will provide An Ideal Candidate assistance to the Chief Judge, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, and the staff of the Appellate Clerk’s Office regarding matters of A Court of Appeals Staff Attorney requires administration and procedure. Duties may substantial knowledge of: include the following: • General legal principles and their application, particularly criminal law. Prepare legal memoranda and/or draft • Methods of legal research and sources opinions that thoroughly analyze and evaluate for finding the law. the issues presented in Court of Appeals cases; • Procedures of the Court of Appeals. Perform technical review of draft opinions to • The rules of trial procedure and ensure the accuracy of the facts recited in the evidence. opinion, the correctness of the legal propositions relied on by the Court, and the logic of the Court’s decision; Perform a final review of draft decisions for accuracy, conformity with established
    [Show full text]
  • The Year in Review 2018: Selected Cases from the Alaska Supreme
    THE YEAR IN REVIEW 2018 SELECTED CASES FROM THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT AND THE ALASKA COURT OF APPEALS Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1 Administrative Law .........................................................................................................................2 Business Law ...................................................................................................................................7 Civil Procedure ................................................................................................................................9 Constitutional Law ........................................................................................................................14 Criminal Law .................................................................................................................................18 Criminal Procedure ........................................................................................................................21 Election Law ..................................................................................................................................37 Employment Law ..........................................................................................................................40 Environmental Law .......................................................................................................................44 Evidence Law ................................................................................................................................45
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey M. Feldman Litigation, Environmental (206) 676-7066 [email protected]
    315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000 Seattle, Washington 98104 Jeffrey M. Feldman Litigation, Environmental (206) 676-7066 [email protected] Profile Introduction Jeff maintains an active trial and appellate practice, focusing on complex civil and criminal matters. He has substantial trial experience, before judges and juries, and has appeared as counsel and argued more than 75 appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court, Alaska Court of Appeals, Idaho Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jeff's trial experience encompasses a broad range of matters, including environmental and antitrust cases, oil and gas disputes, constitutional claims, commercial and corporate litigation, and insurance and personal injury matters. Jeff’s criminal practice focuses on corporate and environmental matters. He has defended companies, corporate officers, and employees in most of the significant environmental matters prosecuted in Alaska, including the Exxon Valdez grounding, the prosecution of timber companies, passenger cruise ship operators, and airline operators for Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act violations, and state and federal environmental prosecutions of oil companies drilling on Alaska’s North Slope. Jeff also has handled public corruption prosecutions, perjury cases, federal false statement and false claims charges, and Alaska’s only impeachment inquiry. Before joining Summit Law Group, Jeff was the founding partner at Feldman Orlansky & Sanders in Anchorage, Alaska. Jeff is also a Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law, has served as an instructor for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, and is a frequent CLE lecturer. 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000 Seattle, Washington 98104 Representative Cases/Matters State of Alaska v.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1995
    YEAR IN REVIEW Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1995 Table of Contents ................................. 95 I. Introduction .................................. 97 II. Administrative Law ............................ 97 A . General .................................. 97 B. Open Meetings Act ......................... 100 C. Fish and Game ............................ 101 D. Local Boundary Commission .................. 103 III. Business Law ................................. 104 A. Commercial Law .......................... 104 B. Insurance ................................. 105 C. Contracts ................................ 108 IV. Civil Procedure .............................. 112 A . General .................................. 112 B. Attorney's Fees ........................... 122 C. Arbitration ............................... 124 V. Constitutional Law ............................ 126 VI. Criminal Law ................................. 133 A . General .................................. 133 B. Criminal Procedure ......................... 145 C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ............... 155 D. Sentencing ................................ 158 E. Evidence ................................. 164 VII. Election Law ................................. 166 VIII. Employment Law .............................. 168 A. General ................................. 168 B. Workers' Compensation ...................... 171 IX. Environmental Law ............................ 177 X. Family Law .................................. 179 96 ALASKA
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of MAINE Departments of Administrative and Financial
    PART VII APPENDIX A STATE OF MAINE Departments of Administrative and Financial Services & Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry RESPONSE COVER PAGE RFI# 201707126 Rule-Making for Adult-Use Marijuana Policy Implementation Lead Point of Contact for Response - e- Name/Title: 1;-\a f\no.. --- V---1 )i i Respondent's Organization Name: \,„i\cmnt., 0 fess,0 nct(s _Ft -v_e_stA h Tel: E-mail: 207 253 - OS98 1 6MT% 101 Website (if applicable): Street Address: 89 Mckc no \ C1 SA +e Ofl0 City/State/Zip: 0 1 it LI State of Maine RFI# 201707126 Rev. 9/2/2016 Page 11 Submission in response to Request for Information (RFI) #201707126 to the Departments of Administrative and Financial Services & Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Public comment, in response to RFI #201707126, Section II - Information Sought, submitted by Hannah E. King, Esq. on behalf of Maine Professionals for Regulating Marijuana. My name is Hannah E. King. I am an attorney with the Maine law firm of Drummond Woodsum and a member of Drummond Woodsum’s regulated substance’s practice where I represent tribal clients across the country who are exploring entering the cannabis space, as well as entrepreneurs, landlords, municipalities, and investors in Maine on matters related to Maine’s medical and adult use marijuana programs. I am also an advisory board member of Maine Professionals for Regulating Marijuana (MPRM), a coalition of Maine professionals advocating for safety, quality, and transparency in the medical and adult use marijuana programs in Maine (for full advisory board membership, see attached). I offer the following comments, on behalf of MPRM, for your consideration as you develop the adult-use marijuana program in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • The State Courts and Alaska Politics: Independence, Public Accountability, and Political Influence
    The State Courts and Alaska Politics: Independence, Public Accountability, and Political Influence Item Type Book chapter Authors Boyer, Michael L. Citation Boyer, Michael, “The State Courts and Alaska Politics: Independence, Public Accountability, and Political Influence” in Alaska Politics and Public Policy, edited by Clive Thomas et al. (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 2016): 625-628. Publisher University of Alaska Press Download date 30/09/2021 13:44:16 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/8361 University of Alaska Southeast From the ScholarWorks@UA collection of Michael Boyer May 1, 2018 The State Courts and Alaska Politics: Independence, Public Accountability, and Political Influence Michael L. Boyer Originally published: Boyer, Michael, “The State Courts and Alaska Politics: Independence, Public Accountability, and Political Influence” in Alaska Politics and Public Policy, edited by Clive Thomas et al. (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 2016): 625- 628. Available at: https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/8360 CHAPTER 17 The State Courts and Alaska Politics: Independence, Public Accountability, and Political Influence Michael L. Boyer The judiciary, or court system as it is often called in Alaska, is established in Article IV of the Alaska Constitution. It is part of the triad of strong and often contending branches of Alaska state government that is identified in Chapter 2 as one of the characteristics of Alaska politics. Yet, unlike the legislature and executive, much of the day-to-day work of the courts, including the Alaska Supreme Court, has nothing to do with politics. Courts spend the vast majority of their time resolving private disputes and enforcing criminal laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Third Report to the Legislature and Supreme Court Alaska Judicial Council 2005-2006
    Twenty-Third Report: 2005-2006 to the Legislature and Supreme Court January 2007 The Alaska Judicial Council (2005-2006) Members and Terms Chairperson Chief Justice Dana Fabe (2006-2009) Chief Justice Alexander O. Bryner (2003-2006) Attorney Members Non-Attorney Members Douglas Baily (2004-2010) Eleanor Andrews (2000-2007) James H. Cannon (2006-2012) Bill Gordon (2003-2009) Robert B. Groseclose (2000-2006) Gigi Pilcher (2000-2005) Susan Orlansky (2002-2008) Christena Williams (2005-2011) Council Staff Larry Cohn, Executive Director Teresa W. Carns, Senior Staff Associate Susie Mason Dosik, Project Coordinator E.J. Pavsek, Fiscal Officer Susan McKelvie, Research Analyst Emily R. Marrs, Executive Secretary Kathy Grabowski, Selection and Retention Assistant Deliberately left blank i Judicial Council Membership 2006 Members and staff, left to right (standing) Susan Orlansky, Chief Justice Dana Fabe, Eleanor Andrews, Bill Gordon, James Cannon (seated) Teresa W. Carns (Senior Staff Associate), Christena Williams, Douglas Baily, Larry Cohn (Executive Director) Deliberately left blank Table of Contents Page Part I: Introduction A. Judicial Council Duties .................................................... 1 B. Council Membership .......................................................2 C. Organization and Administration of the Council .................................2 Part II: Judicial Selection and Evaluation 2003-2004 A. Judicial Selection .........................................................5 1. Nominations.........................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • State of Alaska Court Records
    State Of Alaska Court Records Rudolfo remains impressive after Louie recombines unapprovingly or court-martial any bengaline. Sometimes inheriting Jock trauchling her Flanders limitedly, but unholy Otho cates crispily or skiatrons jingoistically. Is Demetris always isocheimal and indeciduous when yodling some Carnot very adeptly and forever? Kansas birth records of state court hearings on our interline partners contact court COVID-19 Response Alaska Court System. Clerk of police administrators across numerous state law enforcement, and only access to attend in reducing workloads for. For alaska courts of record in response webpage or discover your. Those companies choose to state of alaska court records lookup search change current court system website, the computer terminals located. Constitution can reject a piece of an hour will need a felony preliminary inventory in? However, statutes, and oral arguments online as well. What far the fees for obtaining copies? CourtView equivant. Court of alaska felonies, especially when this record may inspect and government officials or trademark compliance. The average Unit audited these records to cry the Medicaid billing practices utilized by AFH Specifically the audit focused on mention of rates and fees charged to. The press agreed would be based in question we rate this website offers users, sex offender registration is an independent voice of a trial or case. Court Directory Alaska Court System. Alaska Court Services has been providing the height of Alaska with. State of Alaska v Superior Court Larry A business Real deep in Inter 40 P3d 1239 175. Appellate Court Cases The Alaska Appellate Courts include a supreme court city court of appeals Additional information about these courts is threat on.
    [Show full text]