Brodigan v. Alaska Department of Revenue
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASTAUGH, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
John and Helen Brodigan appeal the decision of the Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Division (Department) finding that the Brodigans were ineligible for the 1990 permanent fund dividend (PFD). They argue that John qualified for an allowable absence for medical treatment, and thus they should have received their PFDs. We affirm the Department’s finding that the Brodigans were ineligible in 1990.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The Brodigans moved to Alaska in 1962. 1 John underwent two coronary bypass operations and other vascular surgery in 1971,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Zobel v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kelly v. ZamarelloAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
- Handley v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
- Alaska Pacific Assurance Co. v. BrownAlaska Supreme Court · 1984
- Rose v. Commercial Fisheries Entry CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Heller v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- State, Department of Revenue v. AndradeAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Church v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
- Harrod v. State, Dept. of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Public Employees Retirement System v. GallantAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.