Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A worker at a fish processing plant was injured while on the job. His employer asserted that it did not maintain workers' compensation and that it was immune from suit, so the worker filed a negligence action in state court seeking reimbursement for medical expenses, compensation for lost wages, and attorney's fees. The superior court granted the employer's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds. Because the employer, an international organization, enjoys absolute immunity from suit and it did not waived this immunity, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "Price v. Unisea, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, Michael Cooper was involved in a car accident that injured Samuel Thompson. Thompson sued Cooper and Cooper's employer for damages. The jury returned a verdict for Thompson for compensatory damages but not punitive. The parties appealed the trial court's rulings on certain evidentiary issues, jury instructions and denied motions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed: (1) exclusion of Thompson's treating physicians' opinion testimony on causation; and (2) denial of a jury instruction on additional harm. View "Thompson v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Victoria ("Vicky") Cox and John Floreske were married in July 1981. They separated in September 2007 and divorced in June 2009. During their marriage, Vicky and John amassed a highly illiquid marital estate including three businesses and two subdivisions. After a bench trial each party was awarded a mutual right of first refusal on all properties awarded to the other party. This right was personal to the parties and would not survive them. Vicky appealed the superior court’s denial of her motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(b)(4) and (5) arguing that: (1) the mutual right of first refusal is void under Civil Rule 60(b)(4); and (2) the superior court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to vacate the mutual right of first refusal under Civil Rule 60(b)(5). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the mutual right of first refusal under Civil Rule 60(b)(5). View "Cox v. Floreske" on Justia Law

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska), the agent for the owners of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), leases the TAPS right-of-way from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (Department). Alyeska appealed the Department's 2002 appraisal of the TAPS lease price to Michael Menge, the Commissioner of the Department, and then to the superior court. Both affirmed the Department's appraisal. Alyeska appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing: (1) the Department misinterpreted AS 38.35.140(a); (2) the Department was required to adopt its interpretation of AS 38.35.140(a) as a regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and (3) the appraisal improperly included submerged lands within the right-of-way when the Department failed to establish that the State holds title to those lands. Finding no misinterpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Department of Natural Resources restricted the non-winter use of large vehicles on the Rex Trail. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether these restrictions were within the Department's authority. Because the Department has broad authority to manage public lands in general and specific authority to manage rights-of-way such as the Rex Trail, and the restrictions did not violate any statutory limitations on this authority, the Supreme Court concluded that they were authorized. View "Caywood v. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

Helen S. K. and Samuel M. K. were married in 1990. Helen filed for divorce in December 2010, requesting sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children and equitable division of the marital assets. Samuel counterclaimed, requesting joint legal and shared physical custody of the children. The superior court awarded joint legal custody of all three children, shared physical custody of the parties' two younger children, but awarded Samuel primary physical custody of the parties' oldest child. The court imputed income to Helen and required that she pay Samuel child support. The court divided the parties' marital assets equally and made other decisions concerning the valuation and distribution of certain marital assets. Helen appealed this decision on several grounds, including the use of in camera interviews, the primary physical custody award to Samuel, the imputation of income, the equal property division, and the valuation and distribution of many of the assets. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with respect to the court's valuation of one asset, but affirmed all of its other decisions. View "Helen S. K. v. Samuel M. K." on Justia Law

Siegfried Pedersen was convicted of assault and weapons misconduct. He brought a civil suit against the victims of those crimes, Daniel Blythe and Bobbie Luxford, alleging defamation and trespass. The superior court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of collateral estoppel. Pedersen appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court erred when, in deciding the motion to dismiss, it considered matters outside the pleadings without advising Pedersen of its intent to do so and giving him a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Court held that this error was harmless with regard to Pedersen's defamation claims. The Court also held that it was plain error for the superior court to dismiss Pedersen's trespass claims, claims to which collateral estoppel did not apply. Therefore, the Court affirmed the superior court's judgment on the defamation claims and reversed and remanded on the trespass claims. View "Pedersen v. Blythe" on Justia Law

The question raised before the Supreme Court in two consolidated appeals was whether this certain provisions of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA) applied to a person convicted in a single proceeding of two (or more) sex offenses. James Ward was convicted of two sex offenses in a single criminal proceeding. In a separate and unrelated single proceeding, Michael Boles was also convicted of two sex offenses. They argued that the pertinent statute, AS 12.63.020(a)(1)(B), was ambiguous, because it could be read to require convictions in more than one proceeding. They therefore reasoned that the rule of lenity requires that the ambiguity be resolved in their favor and thus that the statute be read to require them to register for 15 years, not life. They asserted that the Department of Public Safety, in requiring them to register for life, misread the statute. The men filed separate administrative appeals, which were assigned to two different superior court judges. One judge, reasoning that the statute is unambiguous, affirmed the Department's ruling regarding Ward. The other judge, reasoning that the statute is ambiguous and must therefore be read favorably to offenders, reversed the Department's ruling regarding Boles. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Department did not err; the statute, in requiring persons "convicted of . . . two or more sex offenses" to register for life, is unambiguous and cannot reasonably be read to condition lifetime registration on two or more separate convictions for sex offenses, or on any sequential or chronological separation between convictions. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court order that affirmed the Department's decision regarding Ward and reversed the superior court order that reversed the Department's decision regarding Boles. View "Ward v. Alaska Dept. of Public Safety" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a dispute between three daughters regarding the administration of their deceased mother’s estate. The dispute centered around three documents: (1) a will executed in 1987; (2) a revised will the decedent allegedly executed in 2007 or 2008, which contained a clause revoking all prior wills; and (3) an exhibit that was allegedly an accurate (but unsigned) draft of the revised will. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that: (1) the decedent executed a valid will in 1987; (2) the decedent subsequently executed a revised will, but that will was lost; and (3) the revised will had revoked the 1987 will. Because an executed version of the revised will was never located, the superior court concluded it had been destroyed by the decedent, leaving her estate to be administered under Alaska’s statutory scheme for intestate succession. On appeal, one daughter challenged the superior court’s conclusion that the 1987 will was properly revoked. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the superior court to determine whether its finding that the revised will was properly executed is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also remanded for the superior court to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to overcome the presumption that the decedent destroyed her will. View "Dan v. Dan" on Justia Law

Before 2009, the Alaska Board of Game employed a controversial scoring system in order to distribute permits to subsistence hunters in a popular caribou and moose hunting area between Anchorage and Fairbanks. In 2009, the Board amended its regulations to abolish the scoring system and replace it with two separate subsistence hunts: a community harvest hunt for groups and a separate hunt for individuals. A local tribe was subsequently granted a community harvest permit pursuant to the new rules. An individual resident brought suit challenging the new system, alleging violations of the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act, his due process rights, the Board’s governing statutes, and several provisions of the Alaska Constitution. The tribe intervened on the side of the State and a private organization intervened on the side of the individual. In July 2010, the superior court granted summary judgment and enjoined the community harvest hunt as unconstitutional. The superior court later awarded attorney’s fees to the individual and private organization. The tribe appealed both decisions to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court concluded that the underlying appeal was moot because the challenged regulation had been substantively changed since 2009. Accordingly, the case was dismissed. View "Nene v. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game" on Justia Law