Legal Opinion

Wright v. Black

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 1993No. S-5062PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

Michael Wright claims he was given inadequate notice that Divorce Master Andrew M. Brown would consider his motion for paternity testing at a hearing regarding Robyn (Wright) Black’s motion to modify child support. He claims that this inadequacy of notice violated his constitutional right to due process of law. He further claims that Master Brown’s recommendation, approved by Superior Court Judge John Reese, that he be estopped from denying paternity, and Judge Reese’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, constitute error. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Breck v. UlmerAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Aguchak v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Clevenger v. ClevengerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Christensen v. NCH Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Kaiser v. SakataAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Lashbrook v. LashbrookAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Walker v. WalkerAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Coffland v. CofflandAlaska Supreme Court · 2000

25 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