MUNN v. THORNTON

14 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Baker

    446 P.3d 336 (Alaska 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is a legal question reviewed de novo. Thomas v. Archer , 384 P.3d 791, 795 (Alaska 2016) ; see alsoMunn v. Thornton , 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998) ("We exercise our independent judgment in reviewing questions of law, such as whether a cost-plus contract creates a fiduciary relationship.").Seybert v. Cominco Alaska Expl. , 182 P.3d 1079, 1090 (Alaska 2008) (quoting Munn , 956 P.2d at 1220 ).

  2. 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”

    We refused to recognize a fiduciary relationship between a contractor and the owner of a home, however, because fiduciary duties are reserved for relationships involving heightened levels of trust.Munn v. Thomton, 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Paskvan v. Mesich, 455 P.2d 229, 232 (Alaska 1969)).Id.

  3. 2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Trust v. Phila. Fin. Life Assurance Co.

    96 F. Supp. 3d 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 60 times
    Finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a negligence claim where they did "not allege[] the breach of a legal duty independent from [d]efendant's contractual obligations"

    Shipping Funds I, LLC v. Icon Capital Corp., 921 F.Supp.2d 94, 101 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Munn v. Thornton, 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998) (“[A] fiduciary relationship exists when one imposes a special confidence in another, so that the latter, in equity and good conscience, is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one imposing the confidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “At the heart of the fiduciary relationship lies reliance, and de facto control and dominance.”

  4. McIntyre v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc.

    No. 15-35234 (9th Cir. Sep. 15, 2017)

    Id. Indeed, McIntyre concedes that BP extensively modified or completely changed any ideas he may have provided. McIntyre's claims of use of confidential information fail to allege any plausible factual basis to believe that he disclosed any ideas in confidence, see Reeves v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 56 P.3d 660, 666 (Alaska 2002) (citing Reeves I, 926 P.2d at 1137), let alone in the course of a fiduciary relationship, see Munn v. Thornton, 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998). He also pleads no plausible factual basis for his claim that he took reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of his ideas.

  5. McIntyre v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc.

    Case No. 3:13-cv-149 RRB (D. Alaska Mar. 5, 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's well capping idea lacked "any specifications, dimensions, materials, operating limits, or other critical engineering detail essential to implementation" and thus was not "sufficiently developed to be ready for immediate use"

    Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged even the existence of a business relationship with Defendants nor a relationship with a level of trust beyond that. Plaintiff's claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count X) is dismissed. Munn v. Thornton, 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998) G. MISAPPROPRIATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (COUNT XII)

  6. In re Hoffman

    BAP AK-06-1298-BZR (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May. 9, 2007)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming the bankruptcy court's finding that the corporation was the debtor's alter ego because the debtor was the sole shareholder and director of the corporation; the corporation was undercapitalized; corporate formalities were ignored; and the debtor transferred the corporation's assets to his wife's corporation

    Under Alaska law, a general partner is a fiduciary. See Old Harbor Native Corp. v. Afognak Joint Venture, 30 P.3d 101, 106 n.18 (Alaska 2001); Munn v. Thornton, 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998); Paskvan v. Mesich, 455 P.2d 229, 232 (Alaska 1969). See also A.S. § 32.06.404(b)(1) (partner holds property derived from partnership business as a trustee for the partnership).

  7. In re Hoffmann

    CASE NO. A05-00373-DMD, Adversary No. A05-90023-DMD (Bankr. D. Alaska Aug. 8, 2006)

    Under Alaska law, an express or a technical trust relationship existed between the debtor and BNC. The debtor served as a general partner for the Central Park limited partnership. Alaska case law recognizes a fiduciary relationship among partners. A.S. 32.06.404(b)(1) further provides that a partner holds any property derived from partnership business "as a trustee" for the partnership. Old Harbor Native Corp. v. Afognak Joint Venture, 30 P.3d 101, 106 n. 18 (Alaska 2001); Munn v. Thornton, 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998). Other courts have also found general partners to be fiduciaries under § 523(a)(4).

  8. Gavora, Inc. v. City of Fairbanks

    502 P.3d 410 (Alaska 2021)   Cited 2 times

    N. Lights Motel, Inc. v. Sweaney , 561 P.2d 1176, 1187 (Alaska 1977) (quoting State v. Bland , 355 Mo. 706, 197 S.W.2d 669, 672 (1946) ).See Paskvan , 455 P.2d at 232 ; see also Munn v. Thornton , 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998) ("Fiduciary relationships are generally defined by a level of trust beyond that in ordinary business relationships."). Gavora also contends that the parties formed a relation of trust because "a government entity[, such as the City,] has the highest" duty "when entering contracts with its citizens."

  9. Dapo v. Alaska Office of Children's Servs.

    454 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2019)   Cited 14 times
    Holding Office of Children's Services has fiduciary duty to children in its custody

    "[] Williams v. Baker , 446 P.3d 336, 340 (Alaska 2019) (alteration in original) (first quoting Seybert v. Cominco Alaska Expl. , 182 P.3d 1079, 1090 (Alaska 2008) ; then quoting Munn v. Thornton , 956 P.2d 1213, 1220 (Alaska 1998) ). We conclude, therefore, that the relationship between OCS and children in its legal custody pursuant to AS 47.10.084 is a fiduciary relationship for purposes of AS 09.10.055(b)(1)(F), the "breach of trust or fiduciary duty" exception to the statute of repose.

  10. State v. Ranstead

    421 P.3d 15 (Alaska 2018)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that, except in instances of plain error, a defendant is barred from challenging a condition of probation on appeal if the defendant did not object to the condition in the trial court

    Appellate courts typically do not address issues that the parties have not briefed. See, e.g. , Munn v. Thornton , 956 P.2d 1213, 1221 n.11 (Alaska 1998) ; see also State v. Howard , 357 P.3d 1207, 1214 (Alaska App. 2015) (Mannheimer, C.J., concurring) ("[I]t is usually a mistake for the court to issue a ruling that both raises the issue and decides it sua sponte . This kind of judicial decision-making, done without the benefit of adversarial briefing and argument, provides ‘fertile conditions for the creation of judicial error.