Catalina Yachts v. Pierce
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FABE, Chief Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
■ Jim and Karen Pierce rejected an offer of judgment made by Catalina Yachts under Alaska Civil Rule 68 in a breach of warranty case. The .superior court denied Catalina’s later motion for attorney’s fees and costs under Alaska Civil Rule 68, holding that the rule did not apply and was preempted by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act. Because we conclude that Alaska Civil Rule 68 applies, we reverse and remand.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The underlying facts of this case are set out in Pierce v. Catalina Yachts, a breach…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Marek v. ChesnySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Johnson v. FankellSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- State v. Golden's Concrete Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1998
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Monzingo v. Alaska Air Group, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2005
- Allen v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public AssistanceAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
- Enders v. ParkerAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
- Adams v. AdamsAlaska Supreme Court · 2006
- Harrold-Jones v. DruryAlaska Supreme Court · 2018
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.