Rockstad v. Erikson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that any error in the court's grant of summary judgment against a borrower on his statute of limitations defense was harmless where evidence at trial showed a later payment that revived the debt
• holding that questions of law are reviewed de novo
• finding under the doctrine of quasi estoppel, the appellant could not sign a deed of trust to secure a loan and later assert the deed of trust was invalid under Alaska law to prevent foreclosure on the secured property
• \[We] have held that full fee awards are manifestly unreasonable unless the prevailing party has shown 'bad faith or vexatious conduct by the losing party.' \
• “We review a trial court’s rulings on questions of fact for clear error. We review a trial court’s rulings on questions of law, and the application of law to fact, de novo . . . .” (footnote omitted)
• setting forth requirements for quasi-estoppel under Alaska law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).