Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Habib Azimi was involved in a car accident and subsequently brought a pro se personal injury suit against the other driver, Appellee David Johns. Mr. Azimi twice asked for continuances for medical reasons, but the court denied both. Eventually final judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Johns, dismissing Mr. Azimi's case. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Azimi argued that his case should not have been dismissed. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his requests for continuances, and that the court did not provide "adequate guidance" under Alaska's lenient standards for pro se litigants. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the trial record, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Court found that Mr. Azimi had not completed presentation of his case-in-chief. The Court found that the case could not be dismissed before the trial court weighed all of the evidence. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 1956, Appellants Harold and Ellen Cowan were deeded half of a tract of land that contained a "perpetual right of way running with the land" over a thirty-foot strip along its southeastern side. Between 1960 and 1973, Appellee Sharon Yeisley was deeded the other half that ran adjacent to the Cowan's land. The Yeisley deed made no mention of the right-of-way. Ms. Yeisley applied to subdivide her tract in 1980. The plat was approved and recorded. The new plat showed the right of way. In 2006, the Cowans filed suit against the Borough of Ketchikan, Sharon Yeisley and other parties seeking to quiet the title to the right of way. The Cowans argued that their 1956 deed conveyed it, or in the alternative, they acquired the strip by adverse possession. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. The superior court ruled that the 1956 deed did not convey the strip to the Cowans and that they had not adversely possessed it. The court applied the then-current adverse possession statute instead of the statute in effect when the Yeisley land was subdivided. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Cowans argued that the superior court erred in using the 2003 adverse possession statute. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Court found that the lower court should not have used the 2003 statute. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appellant Phyllis Williams appealed an order of the superior court that denied four motions to reconsider child support, visitation arrangements, the appointment of a court custody investigator, and a share of her ex-husband Appellee DeJeaux Williams' military retirement pay. Both parties appeared pro se. Upon careful consideration of all of Ms. Williams' arguments, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Williams' motions were either untimely or otherwise lacked merit. The Court dismissed Ms. Williams' appeal and affirmed the lower court's orders on all matters raised on appeal.

Bryan and Leota Bagby divorced in 2008. Mr. Bagby was awarded custody of the coupleâs only child during the school year. Mrs. Bagby was awarded visitation in the summer months and on alternate holidays. Mr. Bagby moved to Arizona after the custody trial. Mrs. Bagby filed a motion to modify the custody order, but the court denied the motion without holding a hearing. The court reasoned that Mr. Bagbyâs move was not a substantial change in circumstances since the original order contemplated long-distance travel for visitation when both parents lived in different cities in Alaska. Mrs. Bagby appealed. The Supreme Court had consistently held that an out-of-state move is a substantial change in circumstances. In this case, the Court reversed the lower courtâs order and remanded the case for a hearing on Mrs. Bagbyâs motion to modify custody.

Appellee Advanced Physical Therapy, Inc. (APT) terminated the employment of Appellant Patricia Hoendermis. She had previously served as the clinicâs practice administrator. APTâs reason for terminating her was that Appellant had difficulty communicating with her co-workers and supervisors. Accordingly, Appellant disagreed with APTâs decision, and sued APT for wrongful termination and for failing to provide her overtime compensation. Appellant maintained that she was not an administrative or executive employee, and was therefore entitled to overtime pay. Furthermore, she alleged APT violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. The Superior Court granted APT summary judgment, and Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to APT because it found genuine issues of material fact raised by Appellant on both her overtime compensation and wrongful termination claims. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.