Ulmer v. Alaska Restaurant & Beverage Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that consideration of a moot case was not required where \there was no award of attorney's fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue hald] not been preserved for appeal\
• holding that consideration of a moot case was not required where \there was no award of attorney's fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue ha[d] not been preserved for appeal\
• holding that consideration of a moot case was not required when \there was no award of attorney's fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue has not been preserved for appeal\
• indicating that proper scope of inquiry for first prong of public interest exception test in challenge to initiative petition summary language is limited to whether specific language of initiative and summary is likely to be repeated
• noting that we will “refrain from deciding questions where the facts have rendered the legal issues moot” (quoting O’Callaghan v. State, 920 P.2d 1387, 1388 (Alaska 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted))
• denying attorney's fees claim of a party who explicitly stated that it was not seeking any fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).