Alaska Employment Law

The 9th Circuit has re-iterated its rule about unresolved state law issues, as follows:

when (1) a federal court is required to apply state law, and (2) there is no relevant precedent from the state’s highest court, but (3) there is relevant precedent from the state’s intermediate appellate court, the federal court must follow the state intermediate appellate court decision unless the federal court finds convincing evidence that the state’s supreme court likely would not follow it.

Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck, 2007 WL 2964370 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2007). 

District Court constructions of state law do not count.

The opinions of other federal judges on a question of state law do not constitute “convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide [an issue] differently,” [Vesta Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001)], nor do those opinions contain any relevant “convincing evidence.”

Other circuit courts view the state’s intermediate appellate caselaw as interesting but not dispositive.  H/T: EEO Developments.

In Alaska, the Court of Appeals is limited to criminal matters, but the court’s docket sometimes includes issues - such as privacy rights, or other matters of broad public policy - that also arise in civil litigation.