Video Clips
Quoted moments from Alaska public meetings, hearings, and press conferences.
Speaker A
“the husband argued that he should not be required to pay past child support for the parties' disabled adult daughter because the daughter lived in an assisted care facility, so neither parent had physical custody of her”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No.7817, S-19197 Property division & child support in divorce & custody · Sep 10, 2026
Speaker A
“The husband also implied the daughter, now an adult, was capable of caring for herself, so future child support was unwarranted.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No.7817, S-19197 Property division & child support in divorce & custody · Sep 10, 2026
Speaker A
“First, the state's denial of the corporation's tax exemption was timely. The corporation argued that the state must decide whether taxpayers qualify for a tax exemption on the first day of the tax year and then immediately notify taxpayers. But the corporation's reading of the law would be unworkable and is not what the legislature, which passed the law, intended. Second, the state correctly decided that the corporation performs services in the field of health. This ruling was based on evidence about the role of the corporation's highly trained medical director and the corporation's marketing, which emphasized its expertise and skill in testing for sleep disorders.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7818, S-18949, Alyeska International, Inc, d/b/a Alaska Sleep Clini · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“A corporation that performs sleep studies ordered by doctors filed a tax return that claimed the favorable tax status. The state denied this status, concluding that the corporation performed services in the field of health, and required the corporation to pay more taxes. The Superior Court affirmed the state's decision. The corporation appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, raising 3 main arguments: 1. The state's ruling was not timely.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7818, S-18949, Alyeska International, Inc, d/b/a Alaska Sleep Clini · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“2. The state was wrong to find that the corporation performed services in the field of health. And 3. The outcome of this case should be controlled by a private letter ruling the corporation later got from the IRS stating that the corporation did not perform services in the field of health. The court was not convinced by these arguments.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7818, S-18949, Alyeska International, Inc, d/b/a Alaska Sleep Clini · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“The Alaska Supreme Court issued an order on July 17, 2026, in a corporate tax case. Alaska law offers a favorable tax status to corporations that meet certain standards described in federal law. This favorable treatment does not apply to businesses that perform services in the field of health.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7818, S-18949, Alyeska International, Inc, d/b/a Alaska Sleep Clini · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“Third, the court was not convinced by the private letter ruling the corporation got from the IRS. In a private letter ruling, the IRS offers an opinion about a taxpayer's tax situation based on facts described by the taxpayer. In this case, the IRS's letter did not mention certain facts that were key to the state's decision. And the private letter ruling was issued long after the state's decision, so it is possible the corporation changed the way it operated in the meantime. Therefore, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state was not wrong to deny the corporation favorable tax treatment.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7818, S-18949, Alyeska International, Inc, d/b/a Alaska Sleep Clini · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“He argued that he had a right to be present for the trial of his lawsuit.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“Even then, if a person is too disruptive, that person can be removed. In a civil case like this one, the right to be present is not as strong as in a criminal case. The court must balance a person's right to be there against the other side's right to a fair trial. The court must also warn the person before removing him from trial.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“Removing him from the trial was a last resort that was necessary to make sure the defendants had a fair trial. For this reason, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it removed him. The man also made other arguments, but he did not provide any legal or factual support for his arguments. Even self-represented litigants must provide more than just a simple statement to have their claims heard.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“The Supreme Court held that those arguments were waived by insufficient briefing and did not consider those other arguments in its decision.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“For the first time, the Supreme Court had to decide whether a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit can be excluded from court for disrupting the proceedings.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“He repeatedly interrupted proceedings, argued with the judge, and ignored the judge's explanations and instructions.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“After twice requiring the man to participate by video conference and warning him that he would not be allowed to participate in the trial unless he behaved better, the judge excluded the man from trial. The trial continued without him, and the neighbors won the case.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026
Speaker A
“Due process includes a right to be present in court. But the right to be present is not absolute. In cases where someone is accused of a crime, the right to be in court is very strong.”Alaska Court System: Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 7812, S-19351, Humphrey v. Reges · Sep 9, 2026