Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Anderson
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
I
AS 09.30.070 does not provide for compound interest on judgments. We reached a similar conclusion in In re Estate of Gregory, 487 P.2d 59, 63-64 (Alaska 1971) with respect to AS 45.45.010(a)(1) (amended 1976, 1980). No basis exists for distinguishing these statutes with respect to the question of whether compound interest is permissible. Further, our conclusion is in accord with substantial case law from other jurisdictions. E.g., Glenn v. Rice, 174 Cal. 269, 162 P. 1020, 1023 (Cal.1917); Giant Food, Inc. v. Jack I. Bender & Sons, 399 A.2d 1293, 1304 (D.C.Cir.1979); Dezen v. Slatcoff,…
3Cases cited17 opinions
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Plff. In Err., VSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Glenn v. RiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Giant Food, Inc. v. JACK I. BENDER, ETC.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Schwartz v. Piper Aircraft Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1979
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by11 opinions
- State v. DoyleAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
- Montez v. J & B RADIATOR, INC.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1989
- Brandal v. ShanginAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- Lee v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Nautilus Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil CorporationAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.