Legal Opinion
Kinegak v. State, Department of Corrections
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided February 17, 2006No. S-11315PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Because of an oversight the Department of Corrections did not realize that Lloyd Kine-gak’s prison sentences were to run concurrently, and imprisoned him for seven days after his sentences ended. After being released, Kinegak sued DOC for damages. DOC claimed sovereign immunity under AS 09.50.250(3), which immunizes the state against claims arising out of false imprisonment. Kinegak argued that DOC was not immune because it breached a duty to calcu*888late his sentence with due care, a duty he said existed independently of the false imprisonment tort.…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Sheridan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. Richard A. HornCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Barry J. Quinones v. United States of America, and United States Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and Its Agents and EmployeesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Mrs. Verdie Mae Franklin Verdie Mae Franklin, Administratrix of the Estate of Lonnie B. Franklin v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
- Guerrero Ex Rel. Guerrero v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State v. CarlinAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Native Village of Tununak v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- State, Department of Corrections v. HeiseyAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
- Raymond Dapo v. State of Alaska, Office of Children's Services and Taun LucasAlaska Supreme Court · 2019
- B.R. v. State, Department of CorrectionsAlaska Supreme Court · 2006
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.