Legal Opinion

Shearer v. Mundt

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 2001No. S-9224PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Paul Shearer appeals from the denial of his motion for attorney's fees, claiming that, as a prevailing party, he is entitled to fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82. Shearer, a pro se litigant, argues that the trial court erred in relying on Alaska Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Bernhardt 1 to deny him attorney's fees. He claims that Alaska Federal Savings does not apply to him and that the court failed to give sufficient reasons for denying his motion for fees. In the alternative, he argues that this court should overrule Alaska Federal Savings in light of the Alaska Judicial Council's…

3Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Adamson v. University of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Tobeluk Ex Rel. Tobeluk v. LindAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Gates v. City of Tenakee SpringsAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. SheehanAlaska Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Edwards v. Alaska Pulp Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 1996

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

4Cited by31 opinions

  1. Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Hymes v. DeRamusAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Peter v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Oels v. Anchorage Police Department Employees Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Ethelbah v. WalkerAlaska Supreme Court · 2010

26 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