Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. IN RE ADOPTION OF ERIN G

    140 P.3d 886 (Alaska 2006)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that section 1914 challenge was subject to state statute of limitations

    The fact that the Grants unsuccessfully opposed David's individual-justice motion to accept the late-filed appeal does not preclude them from again raising the issue of timeliness in their briefing. See Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215 217 (Alaska 1965).Isaacson Structural Steel Co., Div. of Isaacson Corf. v. Annco Steel Corp., 640 P.2d 812. 815 n. 8 (Alaska 1982}; see also Radich, 399 P.2d at 217.

  2. Whitney Bros. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Industrial & Commercial Construction, Inc.

    432 P.2d 533 (Alaska 1967)   Cited 3 times

    In Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., this court said: 399 P.2d 215, 217 (Alaska 1965) (footnote omitted). 399 P.2d 215, 217 (Alaska 1965) (footnote omitted).

  3. Briggs v. City of Palmer

    333 P.3d 746 (Alaska 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Holding it was reversible error to rule that, in a condemnation case, a landowner "could not testify about damages based on the value of his property before and after [an] alleged taking" because of his lack of "expertise in property valuation"

    ” And we may relax procedural requirements for pro se litigants in situations that do not involve gross neglect or bad faith.Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215, 217 (Alaska 1965); accord Gilbert v. State Farm Ins. Co., Mem. Op. & J No. 1178, 2004 WL 1701109, at *2 n. 6 (Alaska July 28, 2004) (“Though State Farm is correct that technically this appeal is late under Alaska Appellate Rule 204(a)(1) and Alaska Civil Rule 77(k), given Gilbert's pro se status and the plausible reasons she presents for the delay, we will consider the appeal.”)..Alaska R.App. P. 502(b)(2).

  4. Morrell v. Edwards

    98 Nev. 91 (Nev. 1982)   Cited 28 times
    Stating that that test for determining whether an appeal is properly taken from an amended judgment rather than the judgment originally entered depends upon whether the amendment disturbed or revised legal rights and obligations which the prior judgment had plainly and properly settled with finality

    F.T.C. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Co., 344 U.S. 206 (1952); Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, 479 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1973). Here the amendment was directed solely at striking out the award of costs. It did not affect the legal rights and obligations of the parties as they related to the contract, which is the substance of the original judgment and the subject matter of this appeal. Consequently, the amendment has no significance in determining the timeliness of the appeal. Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215 (Alaska 1965); Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 340 So.2d 933 (Fla.App. 1976); National Bond Investment Co. v. Nash Sales Co., 205 N.W. 910 (Wis. 1925). Appellants alternatively argue that the motion to strike the award of costs should be treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under NRCP 59(e).

  5. McCarrey v. Commissioner of Natural Resources

    526 P.2d 1353 (Alaska 1974)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that plaintiff's failure to bring timely appeal of administrative decision in superior court was forgiven where “a great deal of confusion existed concerning the method and procedures by which appeals from an administrative decision might be taken to the superior court”

    "The time within which an appeal may be taken to the superior court from an administrative agency shall be 30 days from the date that the order appealed from is mailed or delivered to the appellant. If a request for agency reconsideration is timely filed before the agency, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the agency's reconsideration decision."See, e.g., Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, 399 P.2d 215, 217, at n. 3 (Alaska 1965); Vogt v. Winbauer, 376 P.2d 1007, 1009-1110 (Alaska 1962). See also Alaska R.App. P. 46.

  6. Graybill v. State

    522 P.2d 539 (Alaska 1974)   Cited 2 times

    This is not changed by the fact that appellant's brief deals only with the question of whether the forfeiture was itself lawful and not with the propriety of allowing a clarifying amendment to the judgment.See Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215, 216-217 (Alaska 1965), for a discussion of a similar issue in a civil appeal. It might also be noted that Graybill did not raise any objection to the forfeiture itself in the court below.

  7. Schandelmeier v. Winchester Western

    520 P.2d 70 (Alaska 1974)   Cited 8 times

    They may be relaxed or dispensed with by this court where a strict adherence to them will work surprise or injustice.See generally Whitney Bros., Inc. v. Industrial Commercial Construction, Inc., 432 P.2d 533 (Alaska 1967); Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215 (Alaska 1965); Vogt v. Winbauer, 376 P.2d 1007 (Alaska 1962). Schandelmeier claims to have relied on the following dictum in Gravel v. Alaskan Village, Inc., 409 P.2d 983, 986 (Alaska 1966), in choosing the procedural course to follow:

  8. Alaska Truck Transport v. Berman Packing Company

    469 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1970)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that Rule 60(b) claims for errors of law should be subject to a 30-day time limitation

    The time within which an appeal may be taken to the supreme court shall be thirty (30) days from the entry of the judgment appealed from * * *. Whitney Bros. Plumbing Heating v. Industrial Com. Constr., Inc., 432 P.2d 533, 534 (Alaska 1967); Gravel v. Alaskan Village, Inc., 409 P.2d 983, 984-985 (Alaska 1966); Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215, 216-217 (Alaska 1965); Oaks v. Grocers Wholesale, Inc., 377 P.2d 1001, 1003 (Alaska 1963); Vogt v. Winbauer, 376 P.2d 1007, 1010 (Alaska 1962). Civ.R. 60(b) provides in part:

  9. Gravel v. Alaskan Village, Inc.

    409 P.2d 983 (Alaska 1966)   Cited 11 times

    The time within which an appeal may be taken to the supreme court shall be thirty (30) days from the entry of the judgment appealed from * * *. Radich v. Fairbanks Builders, Inc., 399 P.2d 215 (Alaska 1965); Vogt v. Winbauer, 376 P.2d 1007 (Alaska 1962). We are aware of the fact that on July 28, 1965, the date that the court signed an order denying appellant's motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal of appellant's complaint, that the clerk of the superior court made the following docket entry: