Ferguson v. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division Ex Rel. P.G.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a putative father, proven not to be the father by blood tests, was entitled only to prospective relief under Alaska's revisory rule and, thus, was still liable for child support arrearages
• holding that a putative father, proven not to be the father by blood tests, was entitled only to prospective relief under Alaska’s revisory rule and, thus, was still liable for child support arrearages
• holding that a putative father, proven not to be the father by blood tests, was entitled only to prospective relief under Alaska's revisory rule and, thus, was still liable for child support arrearages
• holding that a putative father, proven not to be the father by blood tests, was entitled only to prospective relief under Alaska’s revisory rule and, thus, was still liable for child support arrearages
• holding that “the prospective application requirement limits . . . the circumstances in which Rule 60(b)(5) may be applied” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that a disestablished father was entitled to prospective relief only under Rule 60(b)(5), but noting that \we need not consider whether more comprehensive relief might have been granted under some other part of Rule 60(b)\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).