Legal Opinion

McCormick v. Reliance Insurance Co.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 2002No. S-9813PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Alaska Statute 08.18.151 bars a contractor from suing for compensation unless the contractor either met or was in substantial compliance with the contractor registration requirements when the contract was formed. Because there are genuine, material fact disputes about whether John MeCormick substantially complied with these requirements when he contracted to perform services on a public works project, we reverse the summary judgment that dismissed his Little Miller Act claim against the general contractor's surety. We do not reach MeCormick's…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mathis v. SauserAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Sumner Development Corporation v. ShiversAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
  3. State for Use of Smith v. Tyonek Timber, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Jones v. ShortAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  5. United States v. ReitenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Casey v. Semco Energy, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Larson v. BenediktssonAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Alaska Trustee, LLC v. AmbridgeAlaska Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Olson v. City of Hooper BayAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2006

12 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