Beistline v. Footit

4 Citing cases

  1. Titus v. State, Dep’t of Corr.

    496 P.3d 412 (Alaska 2021)   Cited 2 times
    In Titus v. Dep't of Corrs., 496 P.3d 412, 414-18 (Alaska 2021), the Alaska Supreme Court construed the statutory term "matter at issue" when it considered whether, in a medical malpractice action arising from emergency room medical care, a doctor who was not an emergency room doctor or certified in emergency medicine was qualified to testify as an expert witness about the relevant standard of medical care.

    222 P.3d 874, 886 (Alaska 2010). 485 P.3d 39, 43 (Alaska 2021). Dr. Lindquist meets the requirements of AS 09.20.185(a)(1) as a licensed Alaska physician.

  2. Jackson v. United States

    3:21-cv-00116-JMK (D. Alaska Dec. 5, 2023)

    Generally, a plaintiff must prove those elements through expert testimony unless the claim is “non-technical [] where negligence is evident to lay people.”Beistline v. Footit, 485 P.3d 39, 43 (Alaska 2021) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

  3. Zaukar v. United States

    3:20-cv-0163-HRH (D. Alaska Jan. 21, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The Alaska Supreme Court "interprets] statutes 'according to reason, practicality, and common sense, taking into account the plain meaning and purpose of the law as well as the intent of the drafters.'" Beistline v. Footit, 485 P.3d 39, 42 (Alaska 2021). Further, the Alaska Supreme Court considers a statute's "language, its purpose, and its legislative history, in an attempt 'to give effect to the legislature's intent, with due regard for the meaning the statutory language conveys to others' and adopt[s] 'the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.'" In re Estate of Maldonado, 117 P.3d 720, 725 (Alaska 2005) (footnotes omitted) (quoting first Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227, 1234 (Alaska 2003), and, second, Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n.6 (Alaska 1979)). The Alaska Supreme Court is reluctant to interpret statutes in a manner that produces "absurd results."

  4. Mulligan v. Kohl

    No. S-17901 (Alaska Feb. 2, 2022)

    But even if we assume the truth of these allegations for summary judgment purposes, Mulligan does not suggest how she was damaged or why any resulting cause of action would belong to her rather than her insurer or the IRS.See Beistline v. Footit, 485 P.3d 39, 42 (Alaska 2021) (explaining that in determining whether genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment, we must draw all factual inferences, and view all evidence in light most favorable to, non-moving party). With some statutory exceptions, there is no private right of action to enforce the Internal Revenue Code.