Opinion ID: 2681896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We review rulings on motions for summary judgment de novo, ‘reading the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and making all reasonable inferences in its favor.’ A party is entitled to summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”3 Whether Comsult was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in this case depends on our legal interpretation of a statute, AS 45.55.930(g), and on our legal determination whether Girdwood Mining’s claims in this case were barred by res judicata in light of Comsult’s 2007 lawsuit. We review de novo a superior court’s interpretation of a statute4 and its determination that a claim is barred by res judicata.5 2 Because we reverse the superior court’s grant of summary judgment, we need not address the other two issues presented for appeal: whether Girdwood Mining’s rejection of a settlement offer by Comsult merited enhanced attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 68, and whether the superior court erred by denying Comsult’s motion to enforce Comsult’s stock and royalty interests after Girdwood Mining decided to refuse to honor those interests unilaterally following its loss at summary judgment. 3 ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., 322 P.3d 114, 122 (Alaska 2014) (citations omitted). 4 Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446, 449 (Alaska 2009). 5 Patrawke v. Liebes, 285 P.3d 268, 271 n.7 (Alaska 2012). -4- 6921 “When applying the de novo standard of review, we apply our independent judgment to questions of law, adopting the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”6