Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Continental Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 1976No. 2547Published

1Concurrence

BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice,

concurring, with whom DIMOND, Justice Pro Tem., joins.

I find that I must file a separate concurrence on an issue which at first glance might appear to be a relatively minor portion of the majority opinion. The court holds that a trial court may exercise its discretion as to whether or not to award attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who has received and rejected an offer of judgment, for the period of time between the filing of the case and the date of the offer. I believe that the majority unnecessarily injects an area of uncertainty into the application of Civil Rule 68…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. City of Anchorage v. ScaveniusAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Owen Jones & Sons, Inc. v. CR Lewis CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Jakoski v. HollandAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Hoffmeister v. McIntoshWyoming Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Hoffmeister v. McIntoshWyoming Supreme Court · 1961

2 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