for each recipient to determine in what form he or she wanted to receive payment before distribution of the funds could begin. 9 .The board's letter stated that it contained "court-related materials from the hearing” on attorney's fees and stated that they were sent because class counsel had asked the superior court to order that they be sent. The letter then stated that the board considered that sending the materials was a "waste of trust assets." The letter also told members that the board "believed that the award of additional [class counsel attorney's] fees, to be deducted from [members'] benefit payments, was wrong.” 10 . The parties do not distinguish between the system and the board for purposes of the issues on appeal. 11 . Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979) (<HOLDING>). 12 . E.g., A.B. v. State, Dep’t of Health &
holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendants requested submission holding that on questions of law we adopt rule that is most persuasive in light of precedent reason and policy recognizing that although federal precedent was not binding it was persuasive authority holding the florida appellate courts are not bound by federal precedent which is persuasive not binding authority