Nickels v. Napolilli

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Act permits only tort actions when injured employee opts to pursue superior court action against uninsured employer
• holding that whether someone is an “employee” under Act “is a mixed question of law and fact”
• holding that claims remaining after superior court decided injured party was an “employee” under the Act “must be left to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board for resolution”
• holding that superior court “properly deferred deciding any remaining matters relating to the merits of [the employee’s] administrative claims” after court determined employee had “no tenable claim at law”
• summarizing trial court proceedings, including bench trial to determine whether worker was employee for Act’s purposes
• affirming decision that homeowners who worked full time at other jobs but had farm business were employers under Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).