Legal Opinion

Bishop v. Clark

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 2002No. S-9232PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Was it error to award Stacey A. Clark a one-half interest in certain property accumulated while she cohabited with George W. (Will) Bishop? Because we hold that it was error to conclude that a settlement agreement the parties executed in 1998 superseded their 1996 agreement which allocated some of the disputed property to Will, we reverse and remand for consideration of Stacey's claim that she signed the 1996 agreement under duress. Because we affirm the finding that the parties impliedly agreed "to share in the fruits of [their] relationship as though…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Oaksmith v. BrusichAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Beal v. BealOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Willeke v. BaileyTexas Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Carroll v. LeeArizona Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Zimin v. ZiminAlaska Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Koller v. ReftAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Blumenthal v. BrewerIllinois Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Young v. EmbleyAlaska Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Rausch v. DevineAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Osterkamp v. StilesAlaska Supreme Court · 2010

13 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