Clear

444 search results for query *


Summary: 780 F. Supp. Levin v. Knight, 780 F.2d 786, 787 (9th Cir.1986). As explained by the Ninth Circuit in California Architectural Building Products, Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987): First, the Court has made clear that if the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial as an element essential to proof at trial as to an element essential to its case, and that party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of fact with respect ......read more.


Summary: 604 F. Supp. 1375 (1985) MARATHON OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of the Interior, Donald Hodel, Secretary of the Interior; Esther Wunnicke, Commissioner of The Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska; Cook Inlet Region, Inc., an Alaska Corporation, Defendants. Plaintiff Marathon Oil Company owns an undivided fifty percent working interest in certain oil and gas leases in the Kenai Field Unit in Alaska. Each of the defendants, the United Sta......read more.


Summary: 215 B.R. 876 (1997) In re Ronald D. DURHEIM, d/b/a Alaska Aquatics of Anchorage, and Juanita Laverne Durheim, Debtors. Glenda L. SANTOS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael W. Santos; and Glenda L. Santos and Carissa N.P. Ehrenfried, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. Ronald D. DURHEIM and Alaska Aquatics of Anchorage, Inc., Defendants. Ronald D. DURHEIM and Alaska Aquatics of Anchorage, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. David NORTON, Defendant. Glenda L. Santos, as personal representative of the E......read more.


Summary: 366 F. Supp. The service of summons and complaint on these defendants was made pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Alaska long arm statute, A.S. 09.05.015(a)(4), which provides in pertinent part: (a) A court of this state having jurisdiction over the subject matter has *968 jurisdiction over a person served in an action according to the rules of civil procedure. . . . . . . (4) in an action claiming injury to person or property in this state arising out of an act or omission out of this ......read more.


Summary: 504 F. Supp. (emphasis supplied)[19] The court again had occasion to deal with the regulation in the case of Gardner v. Wilcox, 370 F.2d 492 (1966). 2d 92 (1965); see also Baker v. Richardson, 327 F. Supp. [9] 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1973); Cheers v. H.E.W., 610 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. [11] 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1973); H.E.W. v. Meza, 368 F.2d 389, 393 (9th Cir. 1966); Smith v. Celebrezze, 243 F. Supp. [12] 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1973); Harvey v. Richardson, 451 F.2d 589, 590 (9th Cir. 1966); H. E. W. v.......read more.


Published Opinion | Federal District, Federal, | District Court D Alaska | cited by: 1 Primary Sources | citing: 29
Summary: 509 F. Supp. They contend that Rule C violates the principles of procedural due process as enunciated in the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,[8]Fuentes v. Shevin,[9]Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.,[10] and North Georgia Finishing v. Di-Chem.[11] In Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. the Supreme Court struck down Wisconsin's prejudgment wage garnishment procedure as a deprivation of property without due process of law, noting that "the wage earner is deprived......read more.


Summary: 103 F. Supp. This controversy involves the validity of the defendant's location, under the mining laws, of a sand and gravel claim on June 21, 1951, upon a part of a tract of 37.5 acres of land on Whipple Creek in the Tongass National Forest, Alaska, which, on February 9, 1951 had been reserved by the Regional Forester for the use of the Bureau of Public Roads as a source of road building material, and on July 26, 1951 withdrawn from entry by the Secretary of the Interior, Public Land Order No. ......read more.


Summary: 814 F. Supp. See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.1988), amended, 860 F.2d 357 (discussing the doctrine of the law of the case in the Ninth Circuit). Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1990). See United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1049-50 (9th Cir.1985); accord, United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 693 n. 23 (11th Cir.1988), cert. Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 2d 724 (1987); Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354, 1355 (9th Cir.1986). Ce......read more.


Summary: 625 F. Supp. ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY, as agent for the owners of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Esther John ETALOOK, et al., Defendants. Esther John ETALOOK, Plaintiff, v. EXXON PIPELINE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, and The United States of America, et al., Unclassified Parties. THIS CAUSE comes before the court on Alyeska's motion to quiet title and dismiss, Alyeska's motion for a protective order, and Esther John Etalook's motion to compel deposit of addition......read more.


Summary: 445 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (2006) UNITED STATES of America for the use of NORTH STAR TERMINAL & STEVEDORE COMPANY, d/b/a Northern Stevedoring & Handling, and North Star Terminal & Stevedore Company, d/b/a Northern Stevedoring & Handling, on its own behalf, Plaintiffs, and United States of America for the use of Shoreside Petroleum, Inc., d/b/a Marathon Fuel Service, and Shoreside Petroleum, Inc., d/b/a Marathon Fuel Service, on its own behalf, Intervening Plaintiffs, and Metco, Inc. Intervening Plaint......read more.


Summary: 386 F. Supp. This was the expected remedy announced by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2004), opinion amended and superseded on rehearing, 400 F.3d 646, rehearing en banc granted by 401 F.3d 1007, decision en banc, 409 F.3d 1073 (2005). Compare United States v. Wilson, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D.Utah 2005) (finding that guideline sentences are entitled to substantial weight and should be imposed unless substantial reasons justify variance), and United States v. ......read more.


Summary: 559 F. Supp. The Vessel BAY RIDGE, 509 F. Supp. Apparently the clerk was unaware that THE BAY RIDGE expressly approved an earlier decision, United States v. KAIYO MARU NO. 53, 503 F. Supp. 1075 (D.Ak.1980), aff'd 699 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.1983), holding that a Coast Guard seizure authorized under the FCMA obviated the constitutional necessity for a pre-arrest hearing. American Bank of Wage Claims v. Registry of District Court of Guam, 431 F.2d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir.1970). (Supplemental Rules for Certa......read more.


Summary: 161 F. Supp. It is the intention of the Lessee to operate a salmon cannery and general fish business as the same has been operated thereon for the past thirteen years and the Lessee covenants and agrees to keep the premises leased in good order, repair and condition at all times during the term of this lease. * * * the lessee to use its judgment as to what constitutes good order, repair and condition * * *" "Lessee will have and maintain on the premises leased certain machinery, appliances, fixt......read more.


Summary: 307 B.R. 674 (2004) In re John A. SANKEY, Debtor. John A. Sankey, Appellant, v. ABCO Leasing, Inc., Appellee. *675 *676 Robert Crowther, Anchorage, AK, for John A. Sankey. John A. Sankey ("Sankey") has appealed the order entered by the bankruptcy court on June 3, 2003, granting the motion of ABCO Leasing, Inc. ("ABCO") for adequate protection payments under § 363(e)[1] with respect to two lease agreements between the parties. More specifically, ABCO requested that, as required by § 365(d)(10),[4......read more.


Summary: 32 F. Supp. Plaintiff, Alphonso Harris ("Harris"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), filed an amended civil rights complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The State of Alaska, on behalf of defendants,[2] then filed a motion to vacate that Order, on the grounds that the Court failed to identify in writing for defendants the cognizable claims stated in Harris' complaint (see Docket No. 18), to which Harris filed a (late) opposition. Although defendants c......read more.


Summary: 430 F. Supp. 134 (1977) ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Lockheed-Georgia Co., Defendant, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants. The basis for the motion is that most of the claims for relief are barred by various statutes of limitation, and that a claim based on strict liability in tort is not allowed in this case. The present action was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska on July 15, 1975, and defendants were served with a summon......read more.








Summary: 490 F. Supp. Associated Students v. NCAA, 493 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir. Regents of University of Minnesota v. NCAA, 560 F.2d 352, 363 (8th Cir. See Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, 372 F. Supp. 540 (M.D.Tenn.1973); Robinson v. Vollert, 411 F. Supp.