Williams v. Fagnani

8 Citing cases

  1. Reeves v. Godspeed Props.

    517 P.3d 31 (Alaska 2022)

    The court also ordered Reeves to file a response.See Williams v. Fagnani , 228 P.3d 71, 74 (Alaska 2010) (explaining that to determine whether there is an unreasonable interference, the "interests of the parties must be balanced to strike a reasonable accommodation that maximizes overall utility to the extent consistent with effectuating the purpose of the easement" (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.9 cmt. c ( Am. Law Inst. 2000))). Both Godspeed and Reeves complied.

  2. Sykes v. Lawless

    474 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2020)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that superior court did not abuse its discretion by enhancing fee award under Rule 82(b)(G) where litigant "had 'added unnecessary levels of complexity,' used 'bad faith litigation tactics,' and 'filed multiple repetitive motions,' many of which 'were convoluted and difficult to read.' "

    Noting that "courts have recognized that gates, especially locked gates, amount to a significant burden on a rural homeowner's right of access" we concluded that "gates must serve a substantial benefit to the servient land if they are to be maintained across a roadway to a home"; examples of benefits justifying gates included enclosing livestock, protecting valuable property, and protecting personal safety. 228 P.3d 71 (Alaska 2010).Id. at 74 (quoting Restatement ( Third ) of Property : Servitudes § 4.9 ( Am. Law Inst. 2000) ).

  3. Leisnoi, Inc. v. Stratman

    Supreme Court Nos. S-13131 / 13142 (Alaska Sep. 22, 2010)

    Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 2008) (noting the permissive language of Rule 82(b)(3)).See Williams v. Fagnani, 228 P.3d 71, 78 n. 31 (Alaska 2010) ("[T]his court has never vacated a superior court's decision refusing to enhance fees under Rule 82(b)(3)."); Power Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor Hintze, 960 P.2d 20, 45 (Alaska 1998) ("We have never vacated a trial court's decision refusing to enhance fees under former Rule 82(b)(3).").

  4. Corson v. Jamhi Health & Wellness, Inc.

    1:19-cv-016-HRH (D. Alaska Apr. 21, 2022)

    “Awards made pursuant to the schedule of [Alaska] Civil Rule 82(b) are presumptively correct.” Williams v. Fagnani, 228 P.3d 71, 76 (Alaska 2010). However, the court may vary an award of attorney's fees entered pursuant to this rule if the court determines that a variation is warranted after consideration of various factors.

  5. Borer v. The Eyak Corp.

    507 P.3d 49 (Alaska 2022)   Cited 2 times

    (alteration in original) (quoting Greene v. Tinker , 332 P.3d 21, 41 (Alaska 2014) )).Id. (quoting Williams v. Fagnani , 228 P.3d 71, 77 (Alaska 2010) ). None of the reasons Borer offers for why the court should have reduced or eliminated the fee award is compelling.

  6. Dickson v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res.

    433 P.3d 1075 (Alaska 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Affirming that RS 2477 right of way previously primarily used as part of historic Iditarod trail was not limited to winter use or dog-mushing but could "be used for any purpose consistent with public travel" (quoting Dillingham , 705 P.2d at 415 )

    See, e.g. , Wagner v. Wagner , 386 P.3d 1249, 1253 (Alaska 2017) ("Equal division of marital assets and liabilities is presumptively correct, but the superior court may vary this formula in order to reach an equitable distribution...." (footnote omitted) ); Bromley v. Mitchell , 902 P.2d 797, 802 (Alaska 1995) ("A domiciliary plaintiff’s choice of forum should be considered presumptively correct unless the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff’s right to choose is outweighed by other factors."); City of Wasilla v. Wilsonoff , 698 P.2d 656, 658 (Alaska 1985) ("The party challenging the assessment [for a municipal improvement] bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness.").Williams v. Fagnani , 228 P.3d 71, 77 (Alaska 2010) ("Our review of the record does not show the existence of compelling reasons to overcome the presumption of correctness that is afforded to attorney’s fees awards under Rule 82(b)."). Two unique circumstances of this case persuade us that there may be compelling reasons to overcome the award’s presumption of correctness.

  7. Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc.

    331 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2014)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the superior court was not “obliged to consider the [Alaska Civil] Rule 68 argument when it was raised for the first time in motions for reconsideration”

    Twenty percent of “actual attorney's fees which were necessarily incurred” is the presumptively reasonable award for a party who prevails in a case resolved short of trial but who does not recover a money judgment.See Williams v. Fagnani, 228 P.3d 71, 77 (Alaska 2010) (“Awards made pursuant to the schedule of Civil Rule 82(b) are presumptively correct.”).The Rock Gym contends that it should have been awarded fees under Civil Rule 68 instead.

  8. Achman ex rel. Kemp v. State

    323 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Noting rule that expert opinion admissible at trial is admissible for summary judgment purposes

    However, attorney's fee “[a]wards made pursuant to the schedule of Civil Rule 82(b) are presumptively correct,” and the (b)(3) adjustments are discretionary. There is nothing in the record from which we could conclude that the superior court was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable when it awarded attorney's fees pursuant to the schedule and declined to apply the discretionary factors of Rule 82(b)(3).Williams v. Fagnani, 228 P.3d 71, 77 (Alaska 2010).Id. (citing McGlothlin v. Municipality of Anchorage, 991 P.2d 1273, 1277 (Alaska 1999)).