Alaska Supreme Court

The court held that property acquired before a domestic partnership began cannot be classified as partnership property merely because the partnership later used it in a business.

The court affirmed the order terminating the father’s parental rights, rejecting his procedural challenges concerning discovery and earlier ICWA proceedings. It concluded that the record did not establish a discovery error, that the emergency removal was consistent with ICWA, and that ICWA § 1914 does not permit…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed orders committing Derius L. for 90 days and authorizing involuntary psychotropic medication. Because no objections were made to the master's findings, all appellate issues were reviewed for plain error.

The court vacated the final judgment quieting title because the judgment created an access route that did not reflect the historical easement or its partial extinguishment by prescription.

The court affirmed dismissal of Dot Lake Village's suit against Dená Nená Henash for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the intertribal organization qualified for arm-of-the-tribe sovereign immunity under the five-factor framework.

The Alaska Supreme Court adopted a "stop and clarify" rule under article I, sections 9 and 11 of the Alaska Constitution: when a suspect who has waived Miranda rights later makes an ambiguous request for counsel, interrogating officers must stop questioning and clarify whether the suspect is requesting a lawyer.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's dismissal of the mother's state-court custody complaint so the dispute could proceed in the Kenaitze Tribal Court, holding that because the father filed his tribal custody petition before the mother filed her state complaint, the first-filed tribal court is the…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Lora Reinbold's claims arising from an Ethics Committee investigation into her social-media conduct. It held that the claims against the State alleged no actionable executive-branch conduct, while claims against the Ethics Committee were barred by legislative immunity…

The Alaska Supreme Court held that under article I, sections 9 and 11 of the Alaska Constitution, when a suspect who has waived Miranda rights later makes an ambiguous request for counsel, interrogating officers must stop questioning and clarify whether the suspect wants a lawyer — a 'stop and clarify' rule that…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's judgment exempting NSHC's seven-unit staff apartment building in Nome from property taxation under AS 29.45.030(a)(3). The court held that housing medical staff near a hospital serves 'hospital purposes,' but that the apartments were not used 'exclusively' for…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding AHFC’s award of $2,052.38 to Malik. It concluded that his misrepresentation claim was barred by sovereign immunity, his remaining claims were properly treated as an administrative appeal, and federal law did not require AHFC to award his pre-modification…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment that Helen Meeker possessed testamentary capacity when she amended the Survivor's Trust in 2018 and that the amendment was not the product of undue influence.

The court reversed and remanded the marital-estate valuation because the superior court omitted marital debts and retirement-account values, leaving the equalization payment unsupported.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed an order correcting written custody findings to reflect the trial judge’s oral finding that the mother committed one, rather than two, acts of domestic violence.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the order giving the father primary physical custody of the son. It concluded that domestic violence between the mother and son established a substantial change in circumstances, that the court properly considered the evidence and the son’s preference, and that the best-interests…

The court affirmed the denial of Alyeska International’s small-business tax exemption for the 2016–2018 tax years. It held that the statute did not require the State to decide exemption eligibility on the first day of each tax year, and that the Clinic’s medical director’s patient-specific screening and the other…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed termination of Erin's parental rights to Kameron, an Indian child, based on her failure to protect him from repeated domestic violence in the home.

The court affirmed the child support order, the characterization of the inheritance as marital property, the unequal division of the marital estate, and the denial of a credit for post-separation expenditures.

The court affirmed dismissal of the father's CINA case as moot because the child's adoption had become unchallengeable after the statutory one-year period, leaving no possible relief that could restore the father's legal parentage or custody.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the determinations that the parties formed a domestic partnership, that Brockway’s retirement account was partnership property, and that the net partnership property was divided equally.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed termination of the father's parental rights, holding that OCS made reasonable efforts toward reunification when its efforts were considered in their entirety.

The court held that the cultural expert testimony supporting termination of Viva's parental rights was legally insufficient under ICWA because it did not connect the parents' specific conduct to the Tribe's social and cultural standards.

The court affirmed the denial of John Hoth’s motion for relief from a long-term domestic violence protective order under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b). It concluded that his decision not to seek a continuance and his failure to show that the additional evidence was likely to change the outcome or could not have been…

The court vacated the physical custody order because the superior court’s findings did not show whether it compared the children’s lives with each parent in the parent’s respective location, as the required symmetrical analysis demands.

The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the termination of Jace B.’s parental rights, holding that the Department of Family and Community Services (OCS) failed to make the active efforts required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to reunify the Indian child with his father.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the father’s motion to modify joint custody because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding no substantial change in circumstances.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Dobson’s 2025 lawsuit because her claims arose from the same incidents as her 2006 lawsuit and were barred by res judicata. The bar also applied to disability-law claims that could have been brought in the earlier action.

The court affirmed the divorce decree, concluding that the superior court’s factual findings supported awarding the mother sole legal and primary physical custody and that the custody decision and equitable division of the marital estate were not abuses of discretion.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs because the petitioner failed to provide itemized billing after a specific request, and it also affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the University of Alaska Fairbanks, holding that neither the ADA nor the Alaska Human Rights Act creates a statutory duty of care and that Alaska precedent (Schumacher) precludes a duty to protect a plaintiff from risks created by his own conduct.

The court affirmed the award of sole legal custody to the father for school-choice decisions, concluding that the parents’ inability to agree and the child’s academic difficulties supported the custody modification.

The court affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding OCS’s transfer of an Indian child from a relative’s home to a lower-preference foster placement under ICWA. It held that the relative’s failure to obtain treatment for extensive dental decay and failure to provide adequate nutrition constituted clear and…

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Maxine B.’s parental rights, concluding that the superior court did not clearly err in finding she had failed to remedy her alcohol abuse.

The court affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding the Department of Revenue’s calculation of Anchorage’s natural-gas tax credits. It held that municipal own-use gas must be treated as taxable production for credit calculations because the statutory text is ambiguous, while legislative history and the…

The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the custody-modification order because the superior court did not make sufficient findings to show that the parents’ ongoing conflict amounted to a substantial change in circumstances warranting a change in physical custody.

The court affirmed the marital-estate division, rejecting challenges to the treatment of a future reclamation cost, the valuation of a post-separation truck, the unvalued personal items, and the requested lien-release provision.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the long-term domestic violence protective order for Riley. It concluded that the evidence supported the finding that Tyler used excessive force and acted recklessly, that the court’s findings were adequate, and that any evidentiary error involving medical records or Riley’s…

The court held that the superior court acted within its discretion in dismissing Katchatag’s lawsuit because he did not properly serve any defendant despite repeated guidance and extensions.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the orders authorizing psychotropic medication and a 90-day involuntary commitment for A.L. It concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that therapy alone was not a feasible alternative to medication and that no feasible, less restrictive alternative to…

The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s attorney‑fee award to Lakeside North Condominium Home Owners Association and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Lakeside failed to meet its evidentiary burden to show that the fees were reasonable and necessarily incurred in the countersuit.