Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Gillispie v. Beta Const. Co.

842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Gillispie v. Beta Const. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Porter v. Osborn

    3:05-cv-00142 JWS (D. Alaska Sep. 24, 2007)   Cited 1 times
    In Porter v. Osborn, No. 3:05-cv-00142 JWS, 2007 WL 2774379, at *3 (D. Alaska Sept. 24, 2007), it is frankly unclear whether any of the district court's opinion on this point survived its mysterious treatment by the Ninth Circuit. See Porter, 546 F.3d at 1137 (clarifying the standard of culpability for a due process right to familial association claim while never mentioning the First Amendment); see also Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 232 n.6, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) ("Of course the unexplained silences of our decisions lack precedential weight.").

    Doc. 46 at 16. 842 P.2d 1272 (1992). AS § 09.15.010.

  2. Russell ex Rel. J.N. v. Virg-In

    258 P.3d 795 (Alaska 2011)   Cited 34 times
    Discussing and applying qualified immunity standard

    AS 09.15.010, which creates a separate, independent parental cause of action, does not apply here because it accounts for parents' losses resulting from injury or death to their child. Gilspie v. Beta Const. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1273 (Alaska 1992); see id. at 1273-74 (noting that the predecessor statute to AS 09.15.010 was "interpreted as pertaining to pecuniary loss of the parent," and concluding that AS 09.15.010 is "the appropriate vehicle for recognizing [parents' mental and emotional] loss" resulting from the death of their child). Russell did not assert any claims on her own behalf in this matter and so does not incur liability for attorney's fees and costs as a plaintiff.

  3. Elgin v. Bartlett

    994 P.2d 411 (Colo. 1999)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a minor's cause of action for medical negligence does not begin to run until the minor reaches the age of eighteen, unless the minor has a court-appointed legal representative, because the language of the applicable statutory sections reflects the General Assembly's policy choice to operate literally for the protection of the minor by not allowing parents to remove or waive a minor child's legal disability by instituting a next friends suit, and thereby refusing to penalize the minor for the parents' action

    See, e.g., Sizemore, 422 N.W.2d at 674 n. 27; Powell v. American Motors Corp., 834 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. 1992); McCaskill v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 419 Pa. Super. 313, 615 A.2d 382, 386 (1982); Boucher, 850 P.2d at 1186.See Idaho Code § 5-310; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 § 85X; R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-41; Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.010; Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992) (Alaska Stat. § 09.15.010 creates separate parental cause of. action that includes right to recover loss of society damages); Madison v. Colby, 348 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1984) (recognition of claim of loss of filial consortium based on Ia. R. Civ. P. 8). Jurisdictions that have judicially adopted the claim view the adoption of consortium claims as within the responsibility of judicial authority.