Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cook v. Rowland

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2002No. S-9410Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarpeneti, Justice

I agree with the opinion of the court that this case should be remanded for further proceedings before another judge. But I disagree as to how this result is reached. I write separately to set out (1) why Cook's peremptory challenge must be given effect *268and (2) why a new judge on remand-not this court-should decide all matters remaining in this case, including the fate of the motion to set aside the default.

1. The Superior Court Erroneously Denied Cook's Peremptory Challenge as Untimely.

Cook argues that the superior court erred when it dismissed his peremptory challenge as untimely. Litigants…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Channel Flying, Inc. v. BernhardtAlaska Supreme Court · 1969
  2. McCracken v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Pope v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Hertz v. BerzanskeAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Olsten Staffing Services, Inc. v. D.A. Stinger Services, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1996

10 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