Alaska Stat. § 22.10.020

Section 22.10.020(a) treats a municipal council acting as a board of adjustment as an administrative agency for purposes of appeals to the superior court.

Keiner v. City of Anchorage · filed 1963-02-06(a)

We conclude that the term “administrative agency” should be construed broadly so as to include a municipal council, acting as a board of adjustment, since it is in fact performing administrative functions.

Section 22.10.020(a) covers appeals from bodies that perform administrative functions, including the Contract Claims Review Board and the Commissioner of Highways when they review contractor claims.

State v. Lundgren Pacific Const. Co., Inc. · filed 1979-11-30(a)

Keiner, like Lundgren, contended that the board decision was not that of an administrative agency and that AS 22.10.-020(a) refers only to agencies created by the legislature. We concluded that the term “administrative agency” should be construed broadly to include the board of adjustment since it was in fact performing administrative functions. 378 P.2d at 410. Similarly, the Contract Claims Review Board and the Commissioner of Highways, acting for the Department of Highways, perform an administrative function when they review the claims of the contractor.

Section 22.10.020(d) permits an appeal from an administrative decision when judicial review has not been precluded, even if no law expressly provides for that appeal.

Bethel Utilities Corp. v. City of Bethel · filed 1989-09-29(d)

Here, the Bethel City Council has not precluded judicial review. Therefore, the law does provide for appeals from the city council’s administrative decisions.

Section 22.10.020(d) gives the superior court jurisdiction over an administrative appeal only when statutory or common law provides for that appeal.

Hertz v. Carothers · filed 1990-01-05(d)

Alaska Statute 22.10.020(d) states that: “[t]he superior court has jurisdiction in all matters appealed to it from an ... administrative agency when appeal is provided by law.” (Emphasis added). There is no law, either statutory or common law, which gives the superior court jurisdiction over Hertz’ appeal.

Subsection (d) gives the superior court appellate jurisdiction over administrative decisions only when an appeal is provided by law; a Department of Corrections sentence calculation cannot be appealed to the superior court.

Owen v. Matsumoto · filed 1993-10-01(d)

Alaska Statutes 22.10.020(d) provides that the superior court has jurisdiction “in all matters appealed to it from a subordinate court, or an administrative agency when appeal is provided by law.” ... Thus there is no appeal provided for by law conferring jurisdiction on the superior court to hear Owen’s appeal.

Section 22.10.020(d) gives the superior court jurisdiction over administrative appeals when an appeal is provided by law, but does not itself authorize an appeal from a DOC decision.

Brandon v. State, Department of Corrections · filed 1997-06-06(d)

Thus AS 22.10.020(d) does not confer jurisdiction on the superior court to hear this appeal.

Section 22.10.020(d) does not itself authorize appeals from Department of Corrections decisions because no law provides for those appeals.

Welton v. State, Dept. of Corrections · filed 2014-01-03(d)

There is no statutory ... provision for an appeal from a DOC administrative decision, so AS 22.10.020(d) does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the superior court to review appeals from DOC decisions.

Section 22.10.020(d) places challenges to administrative agency decisions in superior court, through a civil action or appeal.

Schwab v. State · filed 2008-11-28(d)

Challenges to the decisions of administrative agencies must be pursued by filing a civil action or appeal in the superior court.

Section 22.10.020 gives superior courts separate appellate and general trial court authority; a party cannot add a claim against a third party to a pending administrative appeal by amending the pleadings.

Mullins v. Local Boundary Commission · filed 2010-03-12

A party may not unilaterally add a complaint against a third party to a pending administrative appeal by amending the pleadings, as Mullins attempted to do in this case.

Section 22.10.020(d) does not itself give the superior court jurisdiction to hear appeals from DOC administrative decisions because no statute provides for those appeals.

Welton v. State, Department of Corrections · filed 2014-01-03(d)

There is no statutory ... provision for an appeal from a DOC administrative decision, so AS 22.10.020(d) does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the superior court to review appeals from DOC decisions.

Section 22.10.020(d) does not give the superior court appellate jurisdiction over Department of Corrections prisoner grievance decisions because no law provides for those appeals.

Osborne v. State, Department of Corrections · filed 2014-09-05(d)

The superior court does not have appellate jurisdiction under AS 22.10.020(d) to hear administrative appeals from DOC grievance decisions.

Section 22.10.020(d) permits superior court review of a DOC decision involving an alleged violation of fundamental constitutional rights only if the proceeding was adjudicative and produced a record capable of meaningful review.

Katchatag v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-04(d)

But we agree that the superior court did ... not have jurisdiction to hear Katchatag’s appeal because the program termination hearing was not sufficiently adjudicative and did not produce a record that allowed for meaningful appellate review.

Section 22.10.020(d) gives the superior court appellate jurisdiction over appeals from subordinate courts and administrative agencies; proceedings to confirm or vacate arbitration awards fall under its original jurisdiction.

Moore v. Olson · filed 2015-07-02(d)

Aimee incorrectly classifies the superior court’s action in this case as intermediate appellate review. Alaska Statue 22.10.020(d) establishes the superior court’s appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from subordinate courts and administrative agencies.

Section 22.10.020(d) permits an appeal to the superior court from a district court decision, but not from an order issued by a judge acting as a superior court judge.

Tyler Cue v. Challens · filed 2024-10-02(d)

We conclude that the superior court that issued the DVPO was acting as a superior court when it did so, and its order could not properly be appealed to the superior court.

Section 22.10.020(d) sets procedures for superior court administrative appeals that do not provide for a jury trial.

Levi v. State, Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development · filed 2018-11-16(d)

Moreover the legislature has set forth procedures for such appeals in ... AS 22.10.020(d),35 and they do not provide for a jury trial.

Section 22.10.020(d)’s requirement that agency appeals be heard on the record does not constrain parties to an original action consolidated with an agency appeal.

Regulatory Commission of Alaska v. Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. · filed 2019-02-22(d)

But the parties to the AEEC lawsuit, an original action, were not constrained by the rules relating to an agency record on appeal. The superior court allowed them to submit documentary evidence regardless of whether it was in the agency record; presumably it would have allowed the RCA and HEA to do the same.

Section 22.10.020(d) gives the superior court jurisdiction over an appeal from an administrative agency when the appeal is provided by law.

Miller v. State of Alaska, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement and Benefits · filed 2022-08-03(d)

Alaska Statute 22.10.020 grants the superior court “jurisdiction in all matters appealed to it from a subordinate court, or administrative agency when [the] appeal is provided by law.” ... Under the statutes, Miller could appeal the Division’s decision only to the superior court.

The superior court may hear an appeal of a DOC decision without a statute authorizing the appeal if the decision implicates a fundamental constitutional right and was made in an adjudicative proceeding with a reviewable record.

State of Alaska, Department of Corrections v. Stefano · filed 2022-09-02(d)

The appellate jurisdiction of the superior court is established in AS 22.10.020(d), which provides that “[t]he superior court has jurisdiction in all matters appealed to it from . . . [an] administrative agency when appeal is provided by law.” There is no statute providing for appeal of a DOC decision to terminate a person from electronic monitoring. However, we have held that administrative appeal of a DOC decision is proper “even when not authorized by statute” if the challenged decision implicates a “fundamental constitutional right[]” and is made “in an adjudicative proceeding producing a record capable of review.”5 We therefore consider whether DOC’s decision to terminate Stefano from the electronic monitoring program meets these criteria.

The superior court has no jurisdiction to review a decision made by a different superior court judge.

Levi v. State of Alaska · filed 2024-03-13

superior court has no jurisdiction over decisions made by a different superior court judge.

Section 22.10.020 bars the state from appealing a criminal case except to test the sufficiency of an indictment or information; the state cannot use a petition for review to evade that bar.

State v. Keep · filed 1965-01-08

Neither Magis.Crim.R. 5 nor Magis. Civ.R. 21 was intended to provide the state with a method of reviewing a criminal trial even though it may not have an “appeal or other plain, speedy or adequate remedy” to use appellant’s language. The legislature did not intend that the state should have the right to appeal a criminal case and said so in unambiguous language. If the legislature had intended that the state have some other analogous or related right or remedy with respect to criminal cases we assume that it would have said so in the same statute in which it prohibited the state from appealing criminal cases.

Section 22.10.020 bars the State from appealing a criminal judgment of acquittal; the State may appeal only to test the sufficiency of an indictment or information.

Selman v. State · filed 1965-10-04

Under these facts, the action taken by the court was final and could not be appealed by the State by reason of the restriction of AS 22.10.020 which prohibits an appeal in a criminal case except to test the sufficiency of an indictment or information.

The state may not obtain review of a criminal acquittal through a petition analogous to an appeal; its right to appeal is limited to testing the sufficiency of an indictment or information.

State v. Keep · filed 1965-12-31(a)

We held that Magis. Crim.R. 5 and Magis. Civ.R. 21 were not intended to provide the state with a method of reviewing a criminal trial and that in enacting AS 22.10.020(a), which provides that the state shall have no right of appeal in a criminal case except to test the sufficiency of the indictment, the legislature could not be presumed to have intended that the state have any analogous or related right to that of appeal.

Section 22.10.020(b) permits declaratory relief when parties have adverse interests that create an actual controversy.

Benesch v. Miller · filed 1968-10-22(b)

It is the opinion of the court that an actual controversy exists.

Section 22.10.020(b) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief; hypothetical, advisory, and moot questions do not qualify.

Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage · filed 1972-12-29(b)

While Article IV, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution ... and AS 22.10.020(a) ... define the general jurisdiction of the superior court, AS 22.10.-020(b) sets forth the specific requirements for jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action, particularly the “actual controversy” criterion. ... Parties seeking a judicial determination of a hypothetical, advisory or moot question will be denied declaratory relief.

A complaint seeking declaratory relief sufficiently states a claim when its allegations show jurisdiction and an actual justiciable controversy; it need not show that the plaintiff will succeed.

Jefferson v. Asplund · filed 1969-10-01(b)

We reiterate the test of sufficiency is not whether the complaint demonstrates that the plaintiff will succeed but rather whether the allegations disclose that he is entitled to a declaration of rights. This criterion is met by allegations showing jurisdiction and the presence of an actual justiciable case or controversy. Tested against this criterion we hold that allegations of Counts I, II, and IV allege sufficient facts to constitute claims for declaratory relief.

Section 22.10.020(b) provides jurisdiction for declaratory judgment actions and imposes no 30-day filing limit.

Moore v. State · filed 1976-07-09(b)

Any action for declaratory judgment must also rely on AS 22.10.020(b) for jurisdiction, which section allows the Alaska Courts to provide declaratory relief. Neither provision imposes a 30-day limitation on actions brought under them.

Section 22.10.020(b) permits a superior court to grant summary judgment and a permanent injunction as declaratory relief when an agency seeks to prosecute a claim outside its jurisdiction.

State, Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division v. University of Alaska · filed 1983-05-20(b)

Additionally, we hold that the superior court's grant of summary judgment and a permanent injunction against prosecution of this claim by the Department of Labor was a proper exercise of its power to render a declaratory judgment under AS 22.10.020(b).

Section 22.10.020(g) permits declaratory relief only when the case is otherwise properly before the superior court, which may decline relief until available administrative remedies are exhausted.

Standard Alaska Production Co. v. State, Department of Revenue · filed 1989-04-21(g)

The superior court will only hear an action brought under the Act where the case is otherwise properly before the court. For reasons which will be explained below, we have concluded that in light of the allegations pled by Standard the superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to declare the parties’ rights until Standard had exhausted available administrative remedies.

Subsection (g) permits the superior court to declare a party’s rights in an actual controversy when a related federal court has not yet addressed the issue.

Anchorage School District v. Anchorage Daily News · filed 1989-09-01(g)

The Daily News was not a party to the federal litigation and the federal court had not addressed the confidentiality issue when the superior court entered its judgment. Thus, we hold that the superior court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its jurisdiction to determine that the Daily News had the right under state law to inspect the settlement documents. The court’s declaratory judgment was, therefore, valid.

Subsection (g) permits the superior court to hear a declaratory judgment action concerning rights under an ambiguous arbitration award.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1547 v. City of Ketchikan · filed 1991-01-18(g)

There is nothing in Alaska’s declaratory judgment act which prohibits its use to determine questions arising out of arbitration.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief, but a court may address a technically moot issue under the public interest exception.

Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State · filed 1995-08-11(g)

Under the Alaska Declaratory Judgment Act, “in case of an actual controversy” the court has the discretion to “declare the rights and legal relations of an interested party seeking the declaration.” AS 22.10.020(g). ... Therefore, KSPA’s claims seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief are technically moot. Nevertheless, we may choose to address certain issues if they fall under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy between parties with adverse legal interests before a court may grant declaratory judgment.

Keen v. Ruddy · filed 1989-12-22(g)

Declaratory judgment is inappropriate when there is no actual controversy between the parties. AS 22.10.020(g).

Section 22.10.020 allows a declaratory judgment only for an actual controversy.

Jackinsky v. Jackinsky · filed 1995-05-12

Although the 1985 suit sought declarations regarding the rights of all of the named leaseholders, under the plain language of AS 22.10.020, as interpreted by Jefferson v. Asplund, 458 P.2d 995 (Alaska 1969), the claim relating to Timothy’s lease was the only actual controversy which could have been resolved in the stipulation to dismiss.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court discretion to grant or refuse declaratory relief.

State v. Fairbanks North Star Borough · filed 1997-04-25

The trial court had discretion under AS 22.10.020 to grant or refuse declaratory relief.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for a declaratory judgment, which includes a claim ripe for adjudication.

Brause v. STATE, DEPT. OF H. & SS · filed 2001-04-17(g)

It was not an abuse of discretion for the superior court to conclude that the balance weighs in favor of the conclusion that this case is not ripe for adjudication and presents no actual controversy under AS 22.10.020(g).

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief and permits dismissal of an unripe claim.

Brause v. State, Department of Health & Social Services · filed 2001-04-17(g)

It was not an abuse of discretion for the superior court to conclude that the balance weighs in favor of the conclusion that this case is not ripe for adjudication and presents no actual controversy under AS 22.10.020(g).

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief, and courts may decline relief on prudential grounds when a declaration would provide no concrete relief.

Kanuk Ex Rel. Kanuk v. State, Department of Natural Resources · filed 2014-09-12(g)

The remaining issue for us to address, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment — absent the prospect of any concrete relief — still present an “actual controversy” that is appropriate for our determination. We conclude they do not.

Section 22.10.020(g) gives the superior court discretion to declare an interested party's rights in an actual controversy with the state; its justiciability decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission · filed 2004-12-10(g)

Since Alaska law gives the trial court discretion to "declare the rights and legal relations of an interested party" in the case of an actual controversy with the state, see AS 22.10.020(g), we review the superior court's decision on justi-ciability for abuse of discretion.

Section 22.10.020(g) gives superior courts discretion to deny declaratory relief when a dispute has already ripened into an alleged violation and coercive remedies would be more effective.

Lowell v. Hayes · filed 2005-07-22(g)

As explained above, a trial court has wide discretion to determine that a request for declaratory relief is inappropriate. Lowell’s defamation claim arose out of statements that the defendants had already made, not that they were likely to make or threatened to make. Thus, by the time Lowell brought suit, the dispute at issue had already “ripened” into an alleged actual violation of law. The superior court therefore did not abuse its discretion in determining that the coercive remedies available to Lowell would be more effective, or “final and conclusive.”

Subsection (g)'s actual controversy requirement is not satisfied when a case is unripe for decision.

State v. American Civil Liberties Union · filed 2009-04-03(g)

We conclude that the actual controversy requirement of AS 22.10.020(g) has not been satisfied because this case is not ripe for decision.

Subsection (g) permits a court to declare an interested party’s rights only when an actual controversy exists.

Alaska Judicial Council v. Kruse · filed 2014-08-08(g)

A court may “declare the rights and legal relations of an interested party,” but only “[i]n [the] case of an actual controversy.” ... The parties are adverse, and we are able to grant relief in the form of a declaration on the constitutionality of AS 22.15.195. Thus, Kruse’s constitutional claims are not moot.

Subsection (g) allows a declaratory judgment about UIM coverage when a claim is reasonably likely to mature, even before the underlying liability limits are exhausted.

Hahn v. GEICO Choice Insurance Company · filed 2018-05-11(g)

Alaska Statute 22.10.020(g) grants the superior court the power to issue declaratory judgments in cases of “actual controversy.” ... Given that Hahn had made UIM benefits central to the settlement negotiations and had represented that Townsend’s personal liability was well over GEICO’s policy limits, we conclude that a UIM claim was reasonably likely to mature.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief; merely requesting a public reprimand does not qualify.

Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game · filed 2015-05-15(g)

simply asking that a public official be reprimanded does not present a justiciable controversy.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief; a request merely to reprimand a public official does not qualify.

Manning v. State, Department of Fish & Game · filed 2015-08-28(g)

simply asking that a public official be reprimanded does not present a justiciable controversy.

A superior court may grant declaratory relief under subsection (g) only for an actual controversy; a hypothetical future trespass is insufficient.

Alaska Commercial Fishermen's Memorial in Juneau v. City & Borough of Juneau · filed 2015-09-25(g)

But the record is devoid of any credible assertion that the City intended to build on lands it did not own, and the superior court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a declaratory judgment on a purely hypothetical (and seemingly unlikely) set of facts.

Subsection (g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief and does not permit declarations on moot questions.

Leahy v. Conant · filed 2019-03-08(g)

We have held that “[t]his provision requires declaratory judgment actions to be associated with an actual case or controversy; they do not open the door for hypothetical adjudications, advisory opinions, or answers to moot questions.”

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual, ripe controversy before the superior court may grant declaratory relief.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation, Hillcorp Alaska, LLC, and SAExploration, Inc. v. State of Alaska, Dep · filed 2021-06-11(g)

The actual controversy ... requirement is not satisfied if a case is not ripe.

Section 22.10.020(g) permits declaratory relief in an actual controversy, a requirement that includes mootness.

Harry N. Young, Jr. v. State of Alaska Office of Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer, in an official ca · filed 2022-01-28(g)

The superior court may provide declaratory relief “[i]n case of an actual controversy.”... This statutory phrase “encompasses considerations of standing, mootness, and ripeness.”

Subsection (g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief; a claim dependent on an unattempted request to dissolve an order is unripe.

Eng v. State of Alaska, Department of Public Safety · filed 2024-10-25(g)

There must be an “actual controversy” for a court to issue declaratory relief under Alaska’s declaratory judgment act. ... Because Eng has not attempted to dissolve the order, there is no actual controversy to decide, and his other arguments are not ripe.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for a declaratory judgment; a challenge to a school district’s spending requires suing a district that authorized it.

State of Alaska, Dept. of Education & Early Development, and Deena M. Bishop, in an official capacity, and Andrea Moceri · filed 2025-03-28(g)

For this reason, Alexander’s claim that certain uses of allotment funds are unconstitutional is not an “actual controversy” permitting declaratory judgment unless he sues a school district that has authorized those uses of allotment funds.

Section 22.10.020(g) requires an actual controversy for declaratory relief; a declaration about decades of unspecified fisheries management would not settle the parties’ legal relations.

Forrer v. State of Alaska, Department of Fish & Game, Board of Fisheries; Douglas Vincent-Lang, in his Official Cap · filed 2025-10-10(g)

Because Forrer’s claim for declaratory relief based on the sustained yield clause does not present a justiciable “actual controversy,” it was not error to dismiss the claim.

For declaratory relief under § 22.10.020(g), laches applies when the underlying relief is equitable; a statute of limitations applies when it is legal.

Estate of Seward · filed 2017-06-02(g)

If the relief is equitable, laches applies; if the relief is legal, a statute of limitations applies. Here the request for declaratory judgment was associated with Gaylene’s creditor claim and with Vincent’s assertion of statutory property rights, both legal in nature. Nothing about the request for declaratory judgment and associated relief was equitable in nature.

Section 22.10.020(g) gives the superior court discretion whether to issue a declaratory judgment.

Thomas Taffe and Devony Lehner v. First National Bank of Alaska · filed 2019-09-27(g)

There was no requirement that the court make a declaratory judgment ruling.

Subsection (g) permits a superior court to deny declaratory relief on prudential grounds even when an actual controversy exists.

Sagoonick v. State of Alaska · filed 2022-01-28(g)

Although Alaska courts may issue declaratory judgment when there is “an actual controversy,” courts are not required to grant declaratory relief because it “is a ‘nonobligatory remedy.’ ” ... Consideration of these goals counsels against granting declaratory relief in this case, as it did in Kanuk.

Section 22.10.020(b) makes a declaratory judgment reviewable like other judgments; it does not make a partial judgment appealable without satisfying the usual finality rules.

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Red Dodge Aviation, Inc. · filed 1970-09-21(b)

The statutory language means “no more than that with regard to finality and review, declaratory judgments are like other judgments.”

Section 22.10.020(b) permits declaratory judgment actions, but they ordinarily cannot be used to bypass limits on the scope of an administrative appeal.

Foster v. State · filed 1988-03-11(b)

While a declaratory judgment action might seem possible pursuant to AS 22.10.020(b), such actions cannot normally be used to circumvent limitations inherent in appeals, such as scope of review.

A superior court order declaring an interested party’s rights and legal relations has the effect of a final judgment, even if further relief could be sought.

Seater v. Estate of Fred L. Seater and Lee N. Seater · filed 2020-04-10(g)

A superior court’s order “has the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and is reviewable as such” when it “declare[s] the rights and legal relations of an interested party seeking the declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.”

Section 22.10.020(g) provides for declaratory judgments that clarify legal relations or resolve the uncertainty giving rise to a dispute; a court should decline relief when neither purpose can be served.

Katchatag v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections · filed 2025-11-26(g)

Moreover, granting Katchatag’s requested relief would not fulfill the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act. See AS 22.10.020(g). We have interpreted the Declaratory Judgment Act as providing that “declaratory judgments are rendered to clarify and settle legal relations, and to terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding,” and that “[a] court should decline to render declaratory relief when neither of these results can be accomplished.” ... Here, the superior court correctly noted that neither of these purposes could be accomplished through a declaratory judgment.

On a sentence appeal, the superior court must independently examine the record and modify the sentence if the district court was clearly mistaken.

Galaktionoff v. State · filed 1971-07-01(a)

The application of this standard to the superior court means that when a sentence is appealed to the superior court, the reviewing judge is to make his own examination of the record and he must modify the sentence if he is convinced that the district court was clearly mistaken in imposing the sanction it did.

Section 22.10.020(a) generally provides for review of administrative appeals on the record, but it does not displace the separate statute granting tenured teachers a trial de novo.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Lum · filed 1975-08-08(a)

Since the two statutes are not irreconcilably conflicting, but can be intelligently read as conterminous expressions of a general rule and an exception to it, nothing in the edicts of statutory construction requires us to find that AS 14.20.205 has been rendered inoperative by the reenactment of AS 22.10.020.

Section 22.10.020(a) allows the superior court, in its discretion, to grant a trial de novo on appeal from an administrative agency.

A. R. C. Industries, Inc. v. State · filed 1976-07-02(a)

AS 22.10.020 permits the trial court, in its discretion, to grant a trial de novo on appeals from an administrative agency. Thus, we find no merit in the state’s argument.

Appeals to the superior court from final orders or judgments of subordinate courts or administrative agencies are heard on the record unless the superior court grants a trial de novo in its discretion.

Shatting v. Dillingham City School District · filed 1980-09-26

Although a review on the record is all that is required, in its discretion the superior court may grant a trial de novo. See AS 22.10.020 ("hearings on appeal from a final order or judgment of a subordinate court or administrative agency shall be on the record unless the superior court, in its discretion, grants a trial de novo, in whole or in part").

Subsection (d) governs appeals from administrative agencies to the superior court and supersedes AS 31.05.080(b)'s provision for a trial de novo.

Allen v. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission · filed 2006-07-21(d)

For the reasons set out below, we agree with the commission that AS 22.10.020(d) impliedly repealed AS 31.05.080(b).

Subsection (d) makes administrative appeals to the superior court proceed on the record unless the court grants a trial de novo in its discretion, superseding an earlier statute that required a new trial.

Allen v. ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV. COM'N · filed 2006-07-21(d)

For the reasons set out below, we agree with the commission that AS 22.10.020(d) impliedly repealed AS 31.05.080(b).

Section 22.10.020(d)'s general discretion to grant a trial de novo on administrative appeal yields to the specific record-only rule for property tax board appeals.

Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough Assessor · filed 2021-06-18(d)

This specific provision in the property tax statute controls over the more general provision in AS 22.10.020(d).

Subsection (c) authorizes compensatory and punitive damages for violations of AS 18.80, in addition to equitable relief.

Loomis Electronics Protection, Inc. v. Schaefer · filed 1976-05-14(c)

We believe that the broad language of AS 22.10.020(c) indicates a legislative intent to authorize an award of compensatory and punitive damages for violations of AS 18.80, in addition to the equitable remedies such as enjoining illegal employment activities and ordering back pay as a form of restitution.

Section 22.10.020(i) does not authorize punitive damages against the state for violations of the Alaska Human Rights Act.

Johnson v. Alaska State Department of Fish & Game · filed 1991-11-29(i)

We believe that the general authorization for damages awards in AS 22.10.020(c) is not sufficient to support an award of punitive damages against the state.

Section 22.10.020(i) permits monetary damages for violations of Alaska’s public accommodation discrimination law.

Gilbert v. Sperbeck · filed 2005-12-09(i)

Unlike the remedial scheme of Title III of the ADA, AS 22.10.020(i) permits recovery of monetary damages for violations of AS 18.80.230.

Section 22.10.020(i) authorizes punitive damages for violations of Alaska’s anti-discrimination law.

Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock · filed 1999-02-19(i)

We therefore follow our prior holdings that punitive damages are authorized under AS 18.80.220 and AS 22.10.020(i).

Subsection (d) permits a superior court to split the monetary and voting rights in inalienable Alaska Native corporation stock and to order a transfer in a later proceeding arising from a child support action.

Calista Corp. v. DeYoung · filed 1977-04-06(d)

The same arguments are founded on this state statute, as were earlier made with respect to the federal statute, i.e. the transfer must be total and the type of action cannot be a later action which is only a consequence of the earlier child support adjudication. ... Lacking legislative expression to the contrary, we find the state statute was enacted to parallel the federal statute. Accordingly, we find our holding on the appellant’s first contention of error controlling here as well, and we thus affirm the court below.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court subject matter jurisdiction over domestic violence protective order petitions.

Armstrong v. Lacie Rebecca Ann Chance · filed 2024-01-19(a)

In Alaska the superior court “is the trial court of general jurisdiction, with original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters.” ... We therefore conclude that the superior court had the subject matter jurisdiction necessary to consider Chance’s petition for a long-term DVPO.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court jurisdiction to order distribution of wrongful death proceeds apart from its specific probate powers.

Engebreth v. Moore · filed 1977-08-12

Under AS 22.10.020, the superior court has jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters and may issue all writs necessary or proper to the exercise of its jurisdiction. Thus, apart from its specific probate powers, vested by AS 13.06, the superior court may order distribution of the proceeds of a wrongful death recovery.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court jurisdiction over actions for habeas corpus, equitable relief, and declaratory judgment.

Bishop v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 1984-07-27

Actions for habeas corpus, for equitable relief, and for declaratory judgment are within the jurisdiction of the superior court. AS 22.10.020.

The superior court's general jurisdiction includes authority to hear and act on a guardian's petition to authorize sterilization of a mentally incompetent person.

Matter of CDM · filed 1981-04-24(a)

We hold that the superior court, as a court of general jurisdiction, does have, as part of its inherent parens patriae authority, the power to entertain and act upon a petition seeking an order authorizing the sterilization of a mental incompetent.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court general jurisdiction that includes authority to hear and decide a petition to authorize the sterilization of a mentally incompetent person.

K. C. M. v. State · filed 1981-04-24(a)

We hold that the superior court, as a court of general jurisdiction, does have, as part of its inherent parens patriae authority, the power to entertain and act upon a petition seeking an order authorizing the sterilization of a mental incompetent.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court general original jurisdiction over criminal matters, allowing a superior court judge to select juries in assigned district court cases.

Ketzler v. State · filed 1981-10-08

The superior court is the court of general jurisdiction, having original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters arising under the laws of the State of Alaska. ... Therefore, by virtue of his appointment to the superior court, Judge Blair had jurisdiction to choose juries in district court cases assigned to him.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court subject matter jurisdiction over claims relating to estates and trusts generally.

Burrell v. Burrell · filed 1984-03-09

The Alaska Superior Court, as a court of general jurisdiction, has been given statutory subject matter jurisdiction to determine claims relating to estates and trusts generally. See AS 22.10.020.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court subject matter jurisdiction over custody disputes between a parent and a non-parent.

Buness v. Gillen · filed 1989-10-27(a)

It does not imply that that the superior court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate custody disputes between a parent and a non-parent. Such disputes are civil matters over which the superior court has undoubted subject matter jurisdiction. AS 22.10.020(a).

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court jurisdiction to determine paternity when parentage matters to the disposition of a child in need of aid case.

Matter of Jb · filed 1996-08-09(a)

For each of these possibilities a threshold determination of Mark's paternity of Johnny was an important consideration. The superior court, as the trial court of general jurisdiction in the state, AS 22.10.020(a), had jurisdiction to make this determination.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court jurisdiction to determine paternity when that question arises in a child in need of aid case.

M.B. v. State · filed 1996-08-09(a)

The superior court, as the trial court of general jurisdiction in the state, AS 22.10.020(a), had jurisdiction to make this determination.

The superior court’s statewide original jurisdiction over civil matters includes quiet title actions.

Gladden v. City of Dillingham and Donald Moore · filed 2014-06-04(a) and (b)

Alaska Statute 22.10.020 provides that “[t]he superior court is the trial court of general jurisdiction, with original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters,” and that its jurisdiction “extends over the whole of the state.”11 Under this constitutional and statutory authority, the superior court had authority to hear and decide Gladden’s quiet title action.

Subsection (c) authorizes the superior court to order a delinquent parent to apply for a permanent fund dividend when necessary to enforce an existing child support order.

State, Department of Revenue v. DeLeon · filed 2004-12-17(c)

Per AS 22.10.020(c), the superior court was therefore authorized to issue orders, such as the one CSED requested, necessary to enforce its 1998 child support order.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court original jurisdiction over probate matters without unstated exclusions.

In Re the Estate of Fields · filed 2009-12-16(a)

Had the legislature intended the superior court's probate jurisdiction to be more limited, it would have specified any exclusions in unambiguous terms as it did with respect to district courts.

Section 22.10.020 grants the superior court general subject matter jurisdiction over child custody cases.

Barlow v. Thompson · filed 2009-12-18(a)

Alaska Statute 22.10.020 grants the superior court general subject matter jurisdiction over these kinds of cases.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court subject matter jurisdiction over both juvenile and adult felony prosecutions.

Fletcher v. State · filed 2011-06-10(a)

In Alaska, the superior court has jurisdiction over both juvenile and adult felony prosecutions.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court general jurisdiction to resolve disputes about the surface estate of mining claims.

Gold Dust Mines, Inc. v. Little Squaw Gold Mining Co. · filed 2012-09-28

Gold Dust frames this as a question of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the superior court did not have "jurisdiction" over the surface estate, which belongs to the State of Alaska. This is misguided. ''The superior court is the trial court of general jurisdiction...." AS 22.10.020. Gold Dust does not argue that the superior court is barred from resolving disputes about the surface estate of mining claims.

Section 22.10.020(a) authorizes a superior court judge to preside over trials in both superior and district court.

McMullen v. State · filed 2018-07-27(a)

A superior court judge is authorized to preside over trials in both the superior court and the district court.

Section 22.10.020 gives the superior court original jurisdiction over criminal matters throughout Alaska.

Bourdon v. State · filed 2016-03-18

The legislature has authorized the superior court to exercise original jurisdiction in all criminal matters, and this jurisdiction extends to the whole of Alaska.

Section 22.10.020(a) gives the superior court general jurisdiction over a tax foreclosure involving property with a federal land patent in its chain of title.

Pursche v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough · filed 2016-03-25(a)

We conclude that the superior court, as Alaska’s court of general jurisdiction, properly exercised jurisdiction over this case.

The superior court has general trial jurisdiction throughout Alaska, including over a dispute about ownership of a trailer home in Anchorage.

Rand J. Hooks, Jr. v. State of Alaska · filed 2024-09-18(a), (b)

The superior court is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Alaska. ... Its jurisdiction “extends over the whole of the state.” ... It therefore had jurisdiction to decide whether Hooks or the other party to the lawsuit owned a disputed trailer home in Anchorage.

The superior court has original jurisdiction in civil matters, including divorce actions.

Jett M. Million v. Hubert · filed 2026-02-20

The superior court has original jurisdiction in all civil matters, including in actions for ... divorce.

Section 22.10.020(c) permits a private action to redress racial discrimination in credit transactions prohibited by AS 18.80.250.

Ratcliff v. Security National Bank · filed 1983-10-07(c)

Pursuant to AS 22.10.020(c), AS 18.80.250 would create a private right of action to redress racial discrimination in credit transactions if it prohibited such discrimination. It is clear that section 250 does precisely that. Consequently, Ratcliff may bring a private right of action against SNB under AS 18.80.250.

Section 22.10.020(i) gives the superior court original jurisdiction over human rights claims; because it shares jurisdiction with the Human Rights Commission, appeals involving questions of law from either receive de novo review.

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights v. State, Department of Administration · filed 1990-07-27(i)

Assuming arguendo that the interpretation of (a)(5) requires agency expertise or involves fundamental policy making, the HRC’s joint jurisdiction with the superior court requires this court to use the independent judgment standard of review. ... Therefore, we must review appeals involving questions of law from the superior court and the HRC under the same de novo standard of review, in order to insure uniformity of decision.