John v. Baker

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cent. Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

    371 P.3d 255 (Alaska 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Tribal court jurisdiction over child support matters must be analyzed on its own merits rather than as an extension of the recognized jurisdiction over child custody matters. See also John v. Baker (John III ), 125 P.3d 323, 326–27 (Alaska 2005) (“Given the plain language of John I and John II, it is clear that we believed that the custody and support matters were separate and that the transfer of the former to the tribal court did not entail the transfer of the latter.” (first citing John I, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999) ; then citing John v. Baker (John II ), 30 P.3d 68 (Alaska 2001) )).

  2. Nusbaum v. State

    Court of Appeals No. A-12371 (Alaska Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2019)

    The use of the present tense "is revoked" suggests that the revocation took effect on the day the order was issued — June 29, 2009. Indeed, that date is explicitly referred to as the "Effective Date" of the order. Bennett v. Bennett, 6 P.3d 724, 726 (Alaska 2000); see also John v. Baker, 125 P.3d 323, 326 n.7 (Alaska 2005). Notably, there is nothing on the face of the order to suggest that the revocation would begin any later than that effective date.

  3. Hicks v. State

    377 P.3d 976 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Upholding a no-contact order to protect witnesses

    The proper interpretation of a court order or judgement is a question of law. John v. Baker , 125 P.3d 323, 326 n. 7 (Alaska 2005) ; Bennett v. Bennett , 6 P.3d 724, 726 (Alaska 2000) ; Luckart v. State , 270 P.3d 816, 820 (Alaska App. 2012).--------