Court Opinion

ID: 9797188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:14:55.845643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:00.465521
License: Public Domain

EASTAUGH, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the court that the fees dispute must be remanded for further proceedings. But I write separately to repeat my view, expressed in my dissent when this case was last before us, concerning the evidence relevant in Alaska Civil Rule 68 attorney's fees disputes.1 In my view, the court has unwisely and needlessly prevented trial courts from considering some of the most relevant evidence bearing on the reasonableness of the incurred attorney's fees when a party seeks a Rule 68 fees award.
Because this is the same case, my continued adherence to my dissent is not foreclosed by stare decisis.2

. Froines v. Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n, 175 P.3d 1234, 1238 (Alaska 2008) (Eastaugh, J., dissenting).

. Cf. Diggins v. Jackson, 164 P.3d 647, 649 (Alaska 2007) (Matthews, J., concurring) (joining in the court's result because the court relied on a recently decided case that "now stands as a decision of this court and as such [] has prece-dential effect. Today's opinion is right in holding that it controls the outcome of this case. Based on the principle of stare decisis I join in the result that today's opinion reaches even though I remain convinced that [the recently decided case] was wrongly decided.").