Skip to main content

Enders v. Parker

Citations

  • 125 P.3d 1027
  • 2005 Alas. LEXIS 143
  • 2005 WL 2620219

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that because Rule 11 sanctions are not mandatory, trial court did not err in failing to impose them even where trial court made finding that party to be sanctioned lacked good faith
  • emphasizing that a trial court’s decision to impose or not impose sanctions is “subject to review only for abuse of discretion”
  • emphasizing that a trial court’s decision to impose or not impose sanctions is “subject to review only for abuse of discretion”
  • explaining that where we remanded for specific findings on a particular issue, “[t]he superior court . . . had discretion to decide whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing or accept additional evidence”
  • emphasizing that trial court’s decision whether to impose sanctions is “subject to review only for abuse of discretion” (quoting Alaska Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Juneau v. Bernhardt, 794 P.2d 579, 583 (Alaska 1990))
  • describing our standard of review for “questions of law” (citing Catalina Yachts v. Pierce, 105 P.3d 125, 128 (Alaska 2005))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Matthews, Eastaugh, Fabe, Carpeneti, Bryner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Enders v. Parker

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.