 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA Iäÿ¾&Xÿ¾6XÿÄ$
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT IMMUNITY DISCRETION JOSEPH POLICY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION POST ORDERS REASONS HEALTH LIABILITY REGULATIONS CORRECTIONS PROTECTION IMMUNE CELL CLOTHING ARGUES DUTY ACTS PRISONERS INSPECTIONS SUPREME COURT INMATE DRUNK TANK TORT EXERCISE COMPLIANCE MOVING PARTY |
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT NOME JOE JOSEPH and JUDITH JOSEPH as Personal Representatives of the Estate of RUDOLPH JOSEPH, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF ALASKA, and MARGARET PUGH, Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants. Case No. 2NO-96-101 CI DECISION REGARDING GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY and PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO EXPERT TESTIMONY The defendant State of Alaska has moved for summary judgment regarding certain actions taken by ile Joseph was incarcerated prior to his suicide. Additionally, the State asks for an order ions, which the State alleges are immune from suit, were negligent. The plaintiffs oppose the There are two basic categories of actions for which the State seeks immunity. The first is the nk tank," and the second is following post orders in his intake processing. The second category of vilian clothing rather than institutional garb, checking his well-being every thirty minutes as th screening procedure that may not adequately identify those at risk of suicide. The State argues immune from action under AS 09.50.250. That section states: A person or corporation having a contract, quasi-contract, or tort claim against the state maySNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
