Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Cook v. Rowland

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2002No. S-9410Published

1ConcurrenceBryner, Justice

I join the per curiam opinion in holding that Cook's default judgment must be set aside and the case remanded for a determination of damages. I also join Justices Eas-taugh and Carpeneti in concluding that Cook's peremptory challenge must be treated as timely on remand; but I set out my reasons separately, because they differ from those adopted in Justice Carpeneti's concurring opinion.

Civil Rule 42(c)(8) allows a party who "enters an action after the case has been assigned to a specific judge" to file a peremptory challenge at any time "before the commencement of trial and within five days…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Riley v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Gardner v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1985
  3. Mundt v. Northwest Explorations, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API