for a "tax equivalency payment" to a resident who "is eligible" if the resident is at least 65 years old or a disabled veteran or at least 60 years old and the widow or widower "of a person who was eligible for payment under (1) or (2)...."); AS 29.45.040(b)-(d) (using "eligible" in a way that implies it refers to the direct beneficiaries of the exemption}; AS 29.45.052(b) (requiring an individual applying for a below-poverty-level tax deferral to submit "proof of eligibility"); AS 29.45.053(b) (requiring that "if two or more are eligible" for a law-enforcement officer exemption, they shall decide among themselves who is to benefit). AS 29.45.030(e), in language parallel to the text of AS 29.45.040(a) quoted above, extends the senior citizen/d fits, 818 P.2d 640, 644 n. 5 (Alaska 1991) (<HOLDING>). 102 . The State argues here that Snider had
holding claimant was not entitled to agencys mistaken application of statutory provision holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference holding that the equitable principle of unjust enrichment allowed an employer to recapture a mistaken overpayment made to the claimant holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference