Christiansen v. Melinda

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that principal cannot use a “power of attorney as a device to license a layman to act as her attorney in a court of record”
• concluding that the \powers [enumerated in Alaska's similar power-of-attorney law] are best characterized as authorizing the agent to act as the client in an attorney-client relationship\
• concluding that the \powers [enumerated in Alaska's similar power-of-attorney law] are best characterized as authorizing the agent to act as the client in an attorney-client relationship\
• rejecting the argument that because a durable power of attorney allows the agent to act as the principal, and the principal would be able to proceed to court pro se, therefore the agent with a power of attorney can litigate pro se for the principal
• “A statutory power of attorney does not entitle an agent to appear pro se in his principal’s place.”
• statute allowing power of attorney is limited by prohibition on unauthorized practice of law, and therefore power of attorney best characterized as the power to act as client in attorney-client relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).