AK · jury_instructions
Alaska Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 18.02
Prima Facie Case
In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant's act or omission involving (insert item of property) caused the plaintiff’s loss.
For the plaintiff to win on this claim, you must decide that it is more likely true than not true that:
(1) the plaintiff had the right to possess the (insert item of property);
(2) the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s possession of the (insert item of property) by (insert alleged act or omission);
(3) the defendant’s conduct was intentional; and
(4) the defendant's intentional interference was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s loss.
If you decide each of these four things is more likely true than not true, then you must decide [whether there was a legal excuse for the defendant's act or omission] [how much the defendant must pay to the plaintiff]. Otherwise, you must return a verdict for the defendant on this claim.
I will now explain to you what "intentional" means and what “substantial factor” means.
History
Alaska Civil Pattern Jury Instructions 18.02, dated 2015. Prepared by the Alaska Civil Pattern Jury Instructions Committee; published by the Alaska Court System. The Alaska Court System states that these instructions "have not been approved or promulgated by any court or the Alaska Bar Association."
Provenance
- Source
- courts.alaska.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
b67e17d07607b4af789b93d39be374062e4696d3c5879a28de0cd6510e465433
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.