McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage

16 Citing cases

  1. Wall v. Stinson

    983 P.2d 736 (Alaska 1999)   Cited 30 times
    Noting bar against relitigating issues decided on merits in a prior proceeding

    3) [t]he issue in the first action must have been resolved by a final judgment on the merits. Rapoport v. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co., 794 P.2d 949, 951 (Alaska 1990) (quoting McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989)). Rapoport v. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co., 794 P.2d 949, 951 (Alaska 1990) (quoting McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989)).

  2. Wagner v. Stuckagain Heights

    926 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1996)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that employee waived argument that she was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits because she failed to raise issue before Board or in her initial administrative appeal

    Each is calculated differently, and not all require proof of lost earning capacity. McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1172 (Alaska 1989); Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Grant, 693 P.2d 872, 876 (Alaska 1985); London v. Fairbanks Mun. Utils., Employers Group, 473 P.2d 639, 642 (Alaska 1970). However, the purpose of all workers' compensation law is partial reimbursement for loss of earning capacity due to injury. Wien Air Alaska v. Arant, 592 P.2d 352, 357 (Alaska 1979); Vetter v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Bd., 524 P.2d 264, 266 (Alaska 1974).

  3. Rapoport v. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co.

    794 P.2d 949 (Alaska 1990)   Cited 24 times
    Applying rule to collateral estoppel

    The applicability of collateral estoppel to a given set of facts is a question of law subject to independent review. McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1170-73 (Alaska 1989); Murray v. Feight, 741 P.2d 1148, 1153-56 (Alaska 1987); Pennington v. Snow, 471 P.2d 370, 374-79 (Alaska 1970). B. Applicability of Doctrine.

  4. Parsons v. Craig City Sch. Dist.

    Supreme Court No. S-17326 (Alaska Nov. 20, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Here Parsons was self-represented and had filed an ambiguous request to "reopen" her case. Her request was barred by res judicata only if it was intended to be a new written claim for the benefits she had already sought unsuccessfully in 2010-11. McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1170-71 (Alaska 1989); see also Robertson v. Am. Mech., Inc., 54 P.3d 777, 779-80 (Alaska 2002) (applying res judicata to bar an amended claim filed shortly after Board decided original claim). Sulkosky v. Morrison-Knudsen, 919 P.2d 158, 163 (Alaska 1996).

  5. Rosales v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

    Supreme Court No. S-16373 (Alaska Jul. 19, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Sengupta v. Univ. of Alaska, 21 P.3d 1240, 1253 (Alaska 2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Pirela v. Vill. of N. Aurora, 935 F.2d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 1991)). Robertson v. Am. Mech., Inc., 54 P.3d 777, 779-80 (Alaska 2002) (citing McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989)). Rosales's arguments that res judicata should not bar his second petition to set aside the settlement and his new workers' compensation claim rest on his assertion that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim.

  6. Seybert v. Cominco Alaska Exploration

    182 P.3d 1079 (Alaska 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that the fiduciary duty between insured and insurance agent “gives rise to an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in execution of the contract”

    None of the cases deals with a request for remand to an administrative agency during the course of an appeal to the superior court. Robertson v. Am. Mech., Inc., 54 P.3d 777, 779-80 (Alaska 2002) (citing McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989)).See State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 874 (Alaska 2003).

  7. Alaska Pub. Int. v. State

    167 P.3d 27 (Alaska 2007)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the Commission is “a properly established quasi-judicial agency”

    But when the courts evaluate an agency interpretation of a statute using the reasonable basis test, we do not accept the agency's interpretation as binding and do not use the same analysis to overrule an agency's interpretation of a statute that we use to overrule a legal precedent that we have established.Robertson v. Am. Mech., Inc., 54 P.3d 777, 779-80 (Alaska 2002) (citing McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989)).Matanuska Elec. Ass'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 152 P.3d 460, 468 (Alaska 2007); see Jeffries v. Glacier State Tel. Co., 604 P.2d 4, 8-9 (Alaska 1979).

  8. Robertson v. American Mechanical, Inc.

    54 P.3d 777 (Alaska 2002)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that employee's amended claim before workers' compensation board was barred by res judicata

    It requires that "(1) the 8 prior judgment was a final judgment on the merits, (2) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the prior judgment, and (3) the same cause of action and same parties or their privies were involved in both suits."McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989).State v. Smith, 720 P.2d 40, 41 (Alaska 1986).

  9. State, Dept. of Revenue v. Wetherelt

    931 P.2d 383 (Alaska 1997)   Cited 21 times
    Reversing a superior court order requiring CSED to reimburse previously collected child support payments to a former father whose paternity the court had newly disestablished and who had neither alleged nor proved grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)

    Whether CSED had the statutory authority to disestablish paternity is a question of law subject to de novo review. Hertz v. Carothers, 784 P.2d 659, 660 (Alaska 1990); McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1170 (Alaska 1989). The superior court held that since CSED knew of the dissolution decree and was aware of Wetherelt's claim that he had a vasectomy prior to his marriage to Mary, it "would have been up to CSED and Ms. Lake to establish a relationship of parent and child in order for CSED to proceed reasonably. . . . [T]he collection of funds by CSED in light of the evidence before them, without making the paternity determination, was an abuse of their discretion."

  10. Matter of Pacific Marine Ins. Co.

    877 P.2d 264 (Alaska 1994)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that no orders in a liquidation or receivership have the character of a final order until the receivership action is terminated or the trial court certifies the order under Rule 54(b)

    3) [t]he issue in the first action must have been resolved by a final judgment on the merits.Id. (quoting McKean v. Municipality of Anchorage, 783 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Alaska 1989)). While the first requirement (identical parties) is clearly met, the second requirement (same issues) is contested in this case.