Black v. Anchorage

7 Citing cases

  1. Silver Bow Constr. v. State

    330 P.3d 922 (Alaska 2014)   Cited 1 times
    Discussing agency discretion to accept overlength bid in competitive bidding process

    ” Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1102 (Alaska 2008) (citations omitted); State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647, 660 (Alaska 2014).Black, 187 P.3d at 1102 (alteration in original) (quoting Matanuska–Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State, 931 P.2d 391, 397 (Alaska 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Schmidt, 323 P.3d at 660.

  2. Silver Bow Constr. v. State

    Supreme Court No. S-15087 (Alaska Jul. 25, 2014)

    " Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1102 (Alaska 2008) (citations omitted); State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647, 660 (Alaska 2014). Black, 187 P.3d at 1102 (alteration in original) (quoting Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State, 931 P.2d 391, 397 (Alaska 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Schmidt, 323 P.3d at 660.

  3. Golden Heart Utils. v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska

    No. S-18624 (Alaska Aug. 28, 2024)

    See May v. State, Com. Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 168 P.3d 873, 884 (Alaska 2007); see also Amerada Hess, 176 P.3d at 685. See, e.g., May, 168 P.3d at 883-84; Black v. Mun. of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1098-99, 1102-03 (Alaska 2008); Amerada Hess, 176 P.3d at 677-79, 683-85.

  4. Randle v. Bay Watch Condo. Ass'n

    488 P.3d 970 (Alaska 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Reviewing for abuse of discretion superior court's limits on non-lawyer assistance in courtroom

    Halloran v. State, Div. of Elections , 115 P.3d 547, 550 (Alaska 2005).Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization , 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008). A. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Or Err By Granting Bay Watch's Request For A Preliminary Injunction.

  5. Varilek v. Burke

    254 P.3d 1068 (Alaska 2011)   Cited 3 times

    We have specifically held that taxing authorities are to be given broad discretion in selecting valuation methods.Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008) (citing ACS of Alaska, Inc. v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, 81 P.3d 292, 295 (Alaska 2003)); Nelson v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm `n, 186 P.3d 582, 585 (Alaska 2008) (citing Simpson v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 101 P.3d 605, 609 (Alaska 2004)).CH Kelly Trust v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 909 P.2d 1381, 1382 (Alaska 1996) (citing N. Star Alaska Hous. Corp. v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Bd. of Equalization, 778 P.2d 1140, 1144 n. 7 (Alaska 1989)).

  6. Varilek v. Burke

    Supreme Court No. S-13554 (Alaska Apr. 13, 2011)

    "In appeals of administrative agency decisions, we do not defer to superior court rulings." Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008) (citing ACS of Alaska, Inc. v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, 81 P.3d 292, 295 (Alaska 2003)). APPENDIX Order

  7. Horan v. Peninsula Borough Bd. of Equaliz

    247 P.3d 990 (Alaska 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that whether or not to apply tax credits in the valuation of real estate has not been a unanimously accepted process in all states and summarizing the split among the out-of-state courts on the issue

    Alford v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. Benefits, 195 P.3d 118, 122 (Alaska 2008) (quoting Alyesku Pipeline Sen'. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227,'1231 (Alaska 2003)).Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008). Whether the Board's factual findings, particularly the findings that the Assessor's valuation was grossly disproportionate and excessive by 40%, are "sufficient to permit appellate review is a legal question that we decide by exercising our independent judgment."