Espeland v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 323 P.3d 2, 14 (Alaska 2014) (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (first quoting Babinec, 799 P.2d at 1328 n.3; then citing Babinec, 799 P.2d at 1333). Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 960 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Babinec, 799 P.2d at 1333). Babinec, 799 P.2d at 1333.
"Szabo v. Municipality of Anchorage, 320 P.3d 809, 813 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 959 (Alaska 2013)). Alaskan Adventure Tours, 307 P.3d at 959 n.6 (citing Smith v. Groleske, 196 P.3d 1102, 1106 (Alaska 2008)).
"See Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City and Borough of Yakutat , 307 P.3d 955, 959-60 (Alaska 2013) (citing Smith v. Groleske , 196 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Alaska 2008) ); Boone v. Gipson , 920 P.2d 746, 748-49 (Alaska 1996).Alaskan Adventure Tours , 307 P.3d at 959-60 (quoting Babinec v. Yabuki , 799 P.2d 1325, 1332 (Alaska 1990) ).
” Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 960 (Alaska 2013).Id.
Jones v. Bowie Indus., Inc., 282 P.3d 316, 324 (Alaska 2012).Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 959–60 (Alaska 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).IV. DISCUSSION
Jones v. Bowie Indus., Inc., 282 P.3d 316, 324 (Alaska 2012). Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 959-60 (Alaska 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). IV. DISCUSSION
"The abuse of discretion standard asks 'whether the reasons for the exercise of discretion are clearly untenable or unreasonable' and fall outside the boundaries of reasonable responses."Szabo v. Mun. of Anchorage, 320 P.3d 809, 813 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 959 (Alaska 2013)). Buchholdt v. Nelson, 534 P.3d 91, 93 (Alaska 2023) (quoting Moore v. Moore, 349 P.3d 1076, 1084 (Alaska 2015)).
020) (noting that involuntary commitment proceedings require clear and convincing evidence standard of proof); Howard v. State , 583 P.2d 827, 833 (Alaska 1978) (noting that it is prosecution's burden to prove all essential elements of crime beyond a reasonable doubt); see also 25 U.S.C. 1912(f) (providing that termination of parental rights under Indian Child Welfare Act requires beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof); AS 47.10.088(a) (providing that termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence standard of proof); DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp. , 63 P.3d 272, 278-79 (Alaska 2003) (explaining that due process requires at least clear and convincing evidence standard in termination of parental rights cases, involuntary civil commitments, deportation proceedings, and denaturalization proceedings because "[e]ach of these categories involves sensitive liberty interests and each involves attempts by the government to deprive individuals of such interests"). But see Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat , 307 P.3d 955, 960 (Alaska 2013) (explaining that party asserting fraud as basis for relief from judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(3) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence); Rausch v. Devine , 80 P.3d 733, 738 (Alaska 2003) (noting presumption that deed was validly delivered can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence). Adopting a preponderance of the evidence standard also promotes uniformity in the law and reduces confusion in the trial process.
2020) (noting that involuntary commitment proceedings require clear and convincing evidence standard of proof); Howard v. State, 583 P.2d 827, 833 (Alaska 1978) (noting that it is prosecution's burden to prove all essential elements of crime beyond a reasonable doubt); see also 25 U.S.C. 1912(f) (providing that termination of parental rights under Indian Child Welfare Act requires beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof); AS 47.10.088(a) (providing that termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence standard of proof); DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp., 63 P.3d 272, 278-79 (Alaska 2003) (explaining that due process requires at least clear and convincing evidence standard in termination of parental rights cases, involuntary civil commitments, deportation proceedings, and denaturalization proceedings because "[e]ach of these categories involves sensitive liberty interests and each involves attempts by the government to deprive individuals of such interests"). But see Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955, 960 (Alaska 2013) (explaining that party asserting fraud as basis for relief from judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(3) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence); Rausch v. Devine, 80 P.3d 733, 738 (Alaska 2003) (noting presumption that deed was validly delivered can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence). Adopting a preponderance of the evidence standard also promotes uniformity in the law and reduces confusion in the trial process.
Griswold v. Homer Bd. of Adjustment , 440 P.3d 248, 252 (Alaska 2019).Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat , 307 P.3d 955, 960 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Wagner v. Wagner , 183 P.3d 1265, 1266-67 (Alaska 2008) ). Whether PLC has standing hinges on the definition of the words "aggrieved by" in AS 44.37.011(b).