Legal Opinion
Tyler v. State
Court of Appeals of Alaska
Decided September 14, 2001No. A-7779PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
On May 18, 2001, this court ordered attorney Eugene B. Cyrus to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him under Appellate Rule 510(c) for his conduct in this appeal. Having considered Mr. Cyrus's response, we conclude that Mr. Cyrus should be fined under Appellate Rule 510(c). In his opening brief, Mr. Cyrus misstated the facts of the case in a way that masked this court's potential lack of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Then, after the true facts were revealed and the jurisdictional problem became known, Mr. Cyrus knowingly failed to cite a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Morton M. Hill, Jr. v. Norfolk and Western Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Cooksey v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Oveson v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
- Johnnie Bonds v. The Coca-Cola CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kollander v. KollanderAlaska Supreme Court · 2017
- Darren M. v. Destiny DAlaska Supreme Court · 2026
- Tyler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2001
- Williams v. Toll Brothers BuildersSupreme Court of Delaware · 2021