Legal Opinion

Crittell v. Bingo

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 2004No. S-10642PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRYNER, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Edmond and Elma Crittell, the proponents of a will held to be invalid and fraudulent, appeal the superior court’s award of full attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82, contending that the rule does not apply to probate proceedings. Alternatively, the Crit-tells argue that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding enhanced fees under Rule 82. Because Rule 82 fees may be awarded under the probate code in eases of fraudulently brought claims, we affirm the trial court’s award.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This is the second time this case has come…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Adamson v. University of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. CarlsonAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Brandon v. Corrections Corp. of AmericaAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Demoski v. NewAlaska Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Pravat P. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Ware v. WareAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Johnson v. JohnsonAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Leigh v. Seekins FordAlaska Supreme Court · 2006

24 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