RILL v. STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS

7 Citing cases

  1. Chena Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. v. Bridges

    502 P.3d 951 (Alaska 2022)   Cited 6 times
    Declining to apply Rule 60(b) to failed Rule 60(b) "excusable neglect" claim

    Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P'ship , 507 U.S. 380, 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (footnote omitted) (quoting 4A C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1165, at 479 (2d ed. 1987) ). For example, one year after Farrell , we held in Rill v. State, Department of Highways , 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983), that Rule 60(b)(1) could not apply when an attorney's neglect was inexcusable. Justice Rabinowitz in dissent argued for a more expansive definition of "excusable neglect," but he did not suggest that inexcusable neglect could be grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), even to avoid injustice.

  2. Beavers v. Alaska Const., Inc.

    787 P.2d 643 (Alaska 1990)   Cited 4 times
    Reviewing the superior court's denial of a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a board decision for an abuse of discretion

    Patricia argues that relief from judgment under [Civil Rule 60(b)(1)] is inappropriate because Jay's attorney's conduct did not constitute "excusable neglect." We agree. As this court stated in Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983), "[a]n attorney's failure to act responsibly toward his or her clients when the attorney could be expected to do so constitutes inexcusable neglect." The Rill court noted that the client's appropriate remedy is an action for malpractice. Rill, 669 P.2d at 576 n. 1. As commentators have noted, "[o]utside the default setting, negligent errors of counsel are treated less sympathetically and relief frequently denied on the grounds that the negligent act was inexcusable.

  3. Dickerson v. Williams

    956 P.2d 458 (Alaska 1998)   Cited 27 times
    Holding moving party failed to exercise due diligence by allegedly relying on misrepresentations when she "had actual knowledge that they were unreliable when she allegedly relied on them"

    We have stressed, though, that to gain relief for excusable neglect a party must show not only "neglect," but a valid "excuse" therefor. See Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983). We also note that a leading commentator heads its discussion of federal Rule 60(b)(1) with the maxim: "deliberate . . . conduct is never mistake or excusable neglect.

  4. Hartland v. Hartland

    777 P.2d 636 (Alaska 1989)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that under Civil Rule 70 court was authorized to hold husband in contempt for failure to comply with court order to transfer stock

    We agree. As this court stated in Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983), "[a]n attorney's failure to act responsibly toward his or her clients when the attorney could be expected to do so constitutes inexcusable neglect." The Rill court noted that the client's appropriate remedy is an action for malpractice.

  5. Theisen v. Thompson

    No. S-18246 (Alaska Feb. 15, 2023)

    . Dickerson v. Williams, 956 P.2d 458, 465 (Alaska 1998) (citing Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983)). Sandberg v. Sandberg, 322 P.3d 879, 887 (Alaska 2014) (alteration omitted) (quoting Dickerson, 956 P.2d at 465).

  6. Brennan v. Brennan

    425 P.3d 99 (Alaska 2018)   Cited 15 times
    Holding wife's work as accountant and onshore liaison for husband's fishing business was insufficient to demonstrate that husband had requisite intent to transmute business to marriage

    O'Link v. O'Link , 632 P.2d 225, 229-30 (Alaska 1981).Dickerson v. Williams , 956 P.2d 458, 465 (Alaska 1998) (citing Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways , 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983) ).Second, Rule 60(b)(3)"is aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those that are factually incorrect.

  7. Coppe v. Bleicher

    Supreme Court No. S-13631 (Alaska Mar. 9, 2011)   Cited 5 times

    Coppe does allege that her trial attorney failed to inform her of the deadlines for filing an appeal before he withdrew from the case; however, this court has already rejected Coppe's request for leave to file a late appeal. 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983).Id. at 574-76.