Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the validity of two 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough (Borough) ordinances: one enacted by the Borough Assembly and the second enacted by voter initiative. The Borough Assembly enacted an ordinance in June 2005 that increased the sales tax rate from two percent to three percent. In an October 2005 election, Borough voters passed an initiative that required prior voter approval for all Borough capital projects with a total cost of more than one million dollars. The Alliance for Concerned Taxpayers (ACT) challenged the sales tax increase and sought to enforce the capital projects voter approval requirement. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Borough on both matters: on the sales tax issue, reasoning that a 1964 voter action allowed the increase and the 2006 referendum defeat ratified it; and on the capital projects voter approval issue, reasoning that Proposition 4 was an unconstitutional use of the initiative power to appropriate a public asset. ACT appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment on the sales tax issue and the capital project voter approval issue, concluding the 1964 voter authorization of a three-percent sales tax preserved the Borough's right to raise the rate to three percent, and that the 2006 defeat of the referendum to repeal the rate increase constituted a ratification of the increase. On the voter approval issue, the Court concluded that allowing voters to veto any capital improvement projects of over $1 million had the effect of diluting the Borough Assembly's exclusive control over the budget and was therefore an impermissible appropriation. View "Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough" on Justia Law

The parents of a developmentally disabled adult woman appealed a superior court's decision to appoint a public guardian, rather than the parents, as the woman's legal guardian. The superior court found that the parents failed to take advantage of resources available for the daughter's development and did not support the daughter's contact with extended family. On appeal, the parents argued that they should have been appointed as guardians and that the appointment of a public guardian, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unfit to serve as guardians, violated their constitutional right to parent their child. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the public guardian, and because the superior court's action did not violate the parents' substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court in all respects. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of Tammy J." on Justia Law

Two correctional officers allegedly injured inmate Respondent Paul Heisey within the jail. Respondent filed a complaint asserting several tort claims against the State and the two officers. Pursuant to a statute allowing the State to substitute as defendant for any State employee that is certified as acting within the scope of employment, the Attorney General certified the officers as acting within the scope of their employment and substituted the State as the Defendant. The State then filed a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. While the motion was pending, Respondent moved to amend his complaint to substitute state constitutional claims for the tort claims. The superior court granted the motion to amend, ruling that Respondent may have a damages claim for violation of his state constitutional rights under the circumstances of the case. In the same order, the superior court partially granted and partially denied the motion to dismiss. The State petitioned for review of the superior court's legal conclusions. The Supreme Court accepted the petition and requested briefing on three issues: (1) whether the Attorney General's certification was subject to judicial review; (2) whether the inmate's claims arose out of an assault or battery for which the State is immune; and (3) whether a state constitutional claim for damages exists under the circumstances of this case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Attorney General's certification was subject to judicial review, that some of the inmate's claims arose out of an assault or battery for which the State is immune, and that a damages claim under the state constitution does not exist under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Court vacated the superior court's order on the motion to amend and motion to dismiss, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Alaska v. Heisey" on Justia Law

Appellant Chana Boyko was a teacher who resigned in lieu of termination from the Anchorage School District after violating a "last chance agreement." She alleged the School District breached a resignation agreement in which it promised not to release negative information about her to prospective employers. Appellant sued, claiming that she was terminated as a result of disability discrimination and that the School District's comments made in violation of the resignation agreement breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and interfered with her prospective contractual relations. The superior court granted the School District summary judgment on all claims, concluding that the District had nondiscriminatory reasons for termination and that its comments were protected by statutory immunity. Appellant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the claims of statutory immunity, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and interference with prospective contractual relations, because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding these claims. The Court affirmed summary judgment on the discrimination claim. View "Boyko v. Anchorage School District" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered the long-standing "emergency aid" exception to the general requirement that a search warrant be obtained prior to police entry into a residence. With this opinion, the Court established that the Alaska Constitution's standards for justifying the doctrine's application goes beyond those required by the federal Constitution, and adopted the standards the State court of appeals first implemented in "Gallmeyer v. State." The Court then considered whether the court of appeals correctly applied the doctrine when it reversed the trial court's ruling that the doctrine excused the warrantless police entry in Defendant Robert Gibson, III's case. Because the police had a reasonable belief of an emergency to justify a warrantless entry into the residence, the Supreme Court concluded the court of appeals did not, and reversed the appellate court's decision. View "Alaska v. Gibson" on Justia Law

"Philip J." is the father of seven children who were adjudicated to be children in need of aid. On appeal, he claimed that his right to due process was violated because he was unaware that the State would seek adjudication findings at the conclusion of a hearing that started as a contested probable cause (temporary custody) hearing. He also argued that he was denied due process because he was not allowed to present a closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Philip was not denied due process because he had notice that the State was seeking adjudication findings, because he had an opportunity to be heard on adjudication, and because he was not denied the opportunity to deliver a closing argument. The Court affirmed the superior court's order adjudicating all of the children as in need of aid. View "Philip J. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Six weeks after the Regulatory Commission of Alaska approved the 2007 Access Charge Rates long distance telephone companies pay to local telephone companies, an association of local telephone companies realized that five of the rates the Regulatory Commission approved were based upon an erroneous spreadsheet the association included in its rate filings. The association requested that the Regulatory Commission correct the rates. The Regulatory Commission corrected the rates prospectively, but concluded retrospective application was barred by the Supreme Court's case law on retroactive ratemaking. The superior court agreed that retrospective application of the adjusted rates was impermissible, and the association appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in "Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. v. Chugach Electric Association, Inc." (prohibiting retroactive ratemaking in "second look" cases), but held that the Regulatory Commission has the authority to implement corrections of some procedural mistakes starting when notice of a mistake is given. The Court remanded to the Regulatory Commission to determine the type of error that occurred in this case and whether the error should be corrected retrospectively. View "Alaska Exchange Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska" on Justia Law

Petitioner Frank Olson was arrested in Anchorage for driving while intoxicated. At the police station he refused to submit to a breath test. An officer advised him of the consequences for refusing to take the test using an implied consent form, but the form contained information that was out of date; it stated that refusal was a felony if the arrestee had been convicted of DWI or refusal twice within the previous five years. In fact, refusal was a felony if the arrestee had been twice convicted within the previous ten years. Petitioner had several prior DWI convictions, one of which was approximately three weeks outside the five-year window, but well within the ten-year window. Petitioner persisted in his refusal and was convicted of the class C felony, refusal to submit to chemical test. He appealed, claiming the erroneous warning violated his due process rights. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed, but the Supreme Court granted his petition for hearing. Because the Court held that Petitioner bore the burden of proving prejudice from the erroneous information, the Court remanded his case to give him an opportunity to make that showing. View "Olson v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Leroy Adams of sexual assault in the second degree for having sexual intercourse with K.S. when he knew that K.S. was unaware that a sexual act was being committed. Both Defendant and K.S. were intoxicated at the time, and Defendant testified at trial that the sex was consensual. During his cross-examination of Defendant, the prosecutor questioned him about his refusal to speak to the police prior to trial. The prosecutor also argued to the jury in closing that Defendant's refusal to talk to the police made his testimony at trial less credible. Defendant claimed on appeal that the prosecutor’s questions and argument were improper comments on Defendant's right to silence under article I, section 9 of the Alaska Constitution. Because Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s questions or argument at trial, the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's petition for review and concluded that the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant's invocation of his right to silence and violated his constitutional rights. The Court reversed his conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Adams v. Alaska" on Justia Law

After a disciplinary hearing, a hearing officer found Alaska prison inmate Joseph James guilty of the “low-moderate” infraction of “threatening another person with future bodily harm” at Red Rocks Correctional Center in Arizona. The determination was based entirely on an incident report written by a prison staff member who had not witnessed the incident. Instead, the report’s author provided a hearsay account of a conversation between James and another staff member. After exhausting his administrative remedies, James filed an appeal to the superior court. James argued that basing the finding of guilt solely on the hearsay written account constituted a violation of his due process rights. James also maintained that the failure to audio-record the disciplinary hearing violated due process. The superior court affirmed the disciplinary determination. Because the Supreme Court concluded that James’s due process right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses was violated during the disciplinary proceedings and that he was prejudiced by the failure to audio-record the disciplinary hearing, the Court vacated the disciplinary determination and remanded the case for a new hearing. View "James v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law