Opinion ID: 1038344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a grant of 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.”4 We “will affirm a grant of summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”5 “The applicability of both state and federal immunity are questions of law that are . . . subject to de novo review.”6 Under the de novo standard of review, we will “apply our independent judgment to questions of law, adopting the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”7 “Because this case raises the question of entitlement to qualified immunity, we ‘focus on the officers’ perspectives and perceptions, as it is what reasonable officers in their position could have thought that is dispositive of this issue.’ ”8 4 Russell ex rel. J.N. v. Virg-In, 258 P.3d 795, 801 (Alaska 2011). 5 Id. at 801-02. 6 Id. at 802 (quoting Smith v. Stafford, 189 P.3d 1065, 1070 (Alaska 2008)). 7 Id. 8 Olson v. City of Hooper Bay, 251 P.3d 1024, 1030 (Alaska 2011) (quoting (continued...) -9- 6807 We “exercise our independent judgment in reviewing whether a trial court has applied the appropriate legal standard in making its prevailing party determination.”9 But we “review a superior court’s determination of prevailing party status and attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion” and “will overturn such determinations only if they are manifestly unreasonable.”10