in the Interest of M v. a Child

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that express intention of Legislature was to apply Uniform Interstate Family Support Act retroactively
• holding that Alaska had personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant under UIFSA to issue judgment setting amount of arrears because child was resident of Alaska and defendant had resided with child in Alaska
• stating that remedial statute, one not affecting substantive rights, should be applied retroactively
• giving retroactive application to UIFSA because it provides a procedural framework for enforcing a support order and does not affect substantive rights
• finding express intention of Legislature to apply Uniform Interstate Family Support Act retroactively in specific words of statute and given its procedural nature
• finding express intention to apply act retroactively in specific statutory language and given its procedural nature

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).