Legal Opinion

Hickel v. Halford

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1994No. S-6124, S-6134PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

This case requires us to interpret article IX, section 17 of the Alaska Constitution, which establishes the budget reserve fund. 1 The voters adopted article IX, section 17 in the 1990 general election. It was placed on the ballot after being passed by a legislative resolution approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the 1990 legislature.

Section 17 requires deposit into the budget reserve fund of all money received by the State after July 1, 1990, “as a result of the termination, through settlement or otherwise, of an administrative proceeding or of litigation…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. State v. LewisAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Citizens Coalition for Tort Reform, Inc. v. McAlpineAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Arco Alaska, Inc. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Mallas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. KritzAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Miller v. Safeway, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Anchorage School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  5. El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Strayhorn, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2006

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API