Vinson v. Hamilton

RABINO WITZ, Justice,

with whom COMPTON, J., joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree that the district court abused its discretion in denying Vinson’s motion for a continuance. I dissent, however, from the court’s holding denying Vinson’s right to a jury trial.

Our decision in McGill v. Wahl, 839 P.2d 393 (Alaska 1992), illustrates the appropriate right-to-jury-trial analysis under the Alaska Constitution:

The Alaska Constitution preserves a jury trial only for those causes of action which are legal, and not equitable in nature. A claim for a prescriptive easement, like a claim…