Legal Opinion

Hickel v. Cowper

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1994No. S-6294, S-6304PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MATTHEWS, Justice.

OPINION

In Hickel v. Halford, 872 P.2d 171 (1994) (Halford), we addressed the meaning of the term “administrative proceeding” as used in article IX, section 17 of the Alaska Constitution. 1 This is one of the terms which describes state revenues which must be deposited into the budget reserve fund. We are now required to interpret several other key terms of section 17, including “amount available for appropriation” and “amount appropriated for the previous fiscal year.” § 17(b). These terms govern the legislature’s ability to withdraw from the budget reserve fund by a simple…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
  3. McAlpine v. University of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State Ex Rel. Udall v. Colonial Penn InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Hillman v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Sampson v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. DupierAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Municipality of Anchorage v. SuzukiAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Eric Forrer v. State of Alaska and Lucinda MahoneyAlaska Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Wielechowski v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2017

13 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