Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John Doe A and John Doe B were convicted of criminal offenses that required them to register and comply with Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA). After their convictions, the legislature amended ASORA, requiring certain offenders to comply with additional registration requirements. The John Does sued, claiming that retroactive application of ASORA’s amendments to them violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Alaska Constitution. The superior court agreed, and the State appealed. In 2008 the Supreme Court decided "Doe v. State" (Doe I), holding that ASORA’s amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and did not apply to persons who committed their crimes before the amendments became effective. Two years later the Court promulgated Alaska Appellate Rule 106, which provided that any issue decided by a two-to-one vote shall not have precedential effect. When the COurt promulgated Appellate Rule 106 it was silent on the question whether that rule might have retroactive effect. The Court held in this case that its two-to-one decision in Doe I was binding precedent that controlled the outcome of this case because Appellate Rule 106 did not have retroactive application. View "Alaska v. Doe" on Justia Law

This case involved a three-way transfer of boat tie-up spaces in a recreational subdivision. The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in requiring the joinder of one of the people involved in the transfer as an indispensable party. Upon review, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err because appropriate relief could not be afforded in the absence of the person in question. The Supreme Court also concluded that the case was properly dismissed because the plaintiff refused to comply with the court's order requiring joinder. View "Weilbacher v. Ring" on Justia Law

Dixie Dixon was injured in an automobile accident when a car driven by Joshua Paul Blackwell ran a red light. She sued and received a verdict that was lower than Blackwell's Alaska Civil Rule 68 offer of judgment. On appeal she challenged the adequacy of the verdict and the efficacy of the offer of judgment. Because the jury's verdict was not inadequate, the offer Blackwell made was a valid Rule 68 offer, and the judgment finally rendered by the court was at least five percent less favorable to Dixon than the offer, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Dixon v. Blackwell" on Justia Law

An employee filed an affidavit of readiness for hearing in her workers' compensation case approximately four years after her employer filed a controversion of her written workers' compensation claim. The employer petitioned to dismiss her claim based on the statutory deadline for a hearing request. After a hearing, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board dismissed her claim, and the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board's decision. Because the employee did not file a timely request for a hearing and was not excused from doing so, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Pruitt v. Providence Extended Care" on Justia Law

The State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Division (DNR), petitioned the Supreme Court for review of a superior court decision that under AS 38.05.035, the lack of continuing best interest findings (BIF) at each phase of an oil and gas project violated article VIII of the Alaska Constitution and that the DNR must issue a written best interest finding at each step of a phased project to satisfy the constitution. Because best interest findings after the lease sale phase are not required under the Alaska Constitution or AS 38.05.035, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court's ruling. Furthermore, the Court held that the State was constitutionally required to consider the cumulative impacts of an oil and gas project at its later phases. View "Sullivan v. Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands" on Justia Law

In May 2011, the superior court modified an existing child support order, specifying that the modification was to be effective as of March 2007. But because the motion requesting modification was not filed until February 2008, the superior court’s order constituted a retroactive modification. Furthermore, the superior court modified the child support award based on its finding that the father’s income exceeded the maximum amount specified in Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3(c)(2). Because retroactive modification of child support is prohibited and because the superior court’s determination of the amount owed did not conform to the analysis specified in Rule 90.3(a), the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s modification of the child support order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Swaney v. Granger" on Justia Law

In 2008 a city promoted a police officer to chief. The city’s hiring determination and the officer’s subsequent conduct led four police department employees to sue the police chief and the city. The employees asserted several claims including wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and negligent hiring. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of the police chief and the city on all claims. The employees appealed several of the superior court’s summary judgment rulings, its denial of sanctions for evidence spoliation, and an attorney’s fees award in the city’s favor. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact barring judgment, and affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of both the employees’ hostile work environment sexual harassment claims against the police chief and the employees’ negligent hiring claim against the city. And because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery sanctions, the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling too. But because genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to the employees’ claims against the city for wrongful termination and sexual harassment, the Court reversed those rulings, vacated the attorney’s fees award, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mills v. Hankla" on Justia Law

Appellant Sidney Hertz, a prisoner sentenced in 1984, applied for an early furlough release in 2009 but refused to agree to comply with any furlough release conditions, arguing that imposing conditions that were not part of his sentence violated his due process rights and constituted double jeopardy. The Department of Corrections (DOC) denied the early furlough release, but he was released on mandatory parole shortly thereafter. Appellant subsequently sued two DOC probation officers, alleging they lacked authority to impose furlough release conditions and that doing so violated his constitutional rights. The superior court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, appellant challenged the superior court’s dismissal and attempts to collaterally attack conditions of his mandatory parole. "Because DOC probation officers are mandated by statute and administrative regulation to impose appropriate conditions on furlough releases without regard to conditions set in an original sentence, and because these mandates alone do not violate a prisoner’s rights under the Alaska or United States Constitutions, [the Supreme Court] affirm[ed] the superior court’s dismissal of this case." View "Hertz v. Macomber" on Justia Law

John Doe A and John Doe B were convicted of criminal offenses that required them to register and comply with Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA). Following their convictions, the legislature amended ASORA, requiring certain offenders, including both Does, to comply with additional registration requirements. The Does sued, claiming that retroactive application of ASORA’s amendments to them violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Alaska Constitution. The superior court agreed, and the State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the amended ASORA could not be applied retroactively: in 2008, in a two-to-one decision, the Court held that ASORA’s amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and did not apply to persons who committed their crimes before the amendments became effective. Two years later the Court promulgated Alaska Appellate Rule 106, which provided that any issue decided by a two-to-one vote would not have precedential effect. When the Court promulgated Appellate Rule 106 it was silent on the question whether that rule might have retroactive effect. By the Court's opinion in this case, that earlier two-to-one decision is now binding precedent that controlled the outcome of this case because Appellate Rule 106 does not have retroactive application. View "Alaska v. Doe" on Justia Law

The center of this appeal before the Supreme Court involved a three-way transfer of boat tie-up spaces in a recreational subdivision. Specifically, the issue was whether the court erred in requiring the joinder of one of the people involved in the transfer as an indispensable party. The Court concluded that the court did not err because appropriate relief could not be afforded in the absence of the person in question. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the case was properly dismissed because the plaintiff refused to comply with the court's order requiring joinder. View "Weilbacher v. Ring" on Justia Law