Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Koivisto

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 2005No. S-11427PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FABE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Kristine A. Schmidt is an attorney who requested permission to file a late brief after the superior court master had set a firm date for concurrent briefing and announced that no extensions would be granted. The superior court master accepted Schmidt’s late brief but allowed the opposing party to file a reply brief to alleviate the potential for unfair advantage created by the late filing. The superior court instructed Schmidt to pay attorney’s fees associated with the opposing party’s reply brief pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 95(a). Later, the superior…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. CarlsonAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Laura Ann Morris v. Adams-Millis Corporation, Michael T. Braswell, Attorney ForCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
  4. Keen v. RuddyAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Lashbrook v. LashbrookAlaska Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Anchorage Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Hertz v. BeachAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State, Department of Fish & Game v. ManningAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Enders v. ParkerAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services v. Michelle PAlaska Supreme Court · 2018

8 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