Great Western Sav. v. George W. Easley

3 Citing cases

  1. Thomas, Head Greisen Employees Tr. v. Buster

    95 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 114 times
    Holding that contempt order did not violate due process where, although district court did not hold evidentiary hearing, contemnors “had ample notice and an opportunity to respond to the possibility that the court would find them in contempt” and did not request an evidentiary hearing

    Id. at 1079 n. 4. Similarly, in Great Western Savings Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989), the trial court entered an order subordinating a construction lender's deed of trust to a general contractor's mechanics' lien. On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that, because it was affirming a money judgment against the lender, "the order of subordination can be viewed as an order in aid of collection of the judgment which is within the inherent power of the court."

  2. Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP

    2:18-mc-00817 (D. Utah Jan. 5, 2024)

    ) 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989). Id. at 581.

  3. Asher v. Alkan Shelter

    212 P.3d 772 (Alaska 2009)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the superior court's credibility determinations were not rendered clearly erroneous merely because a party testified by telephone

    Id. (citing Brownlee v. Vang, 206 Cal.App.2d 814, 24 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1962)).See Great W. Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 579 (Alaska 1989) ("It is noteworthy that appellant does not contend that equitable estoppel will not support a claim for affirmative relief. The general rule is to that effect.