Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brian Ross had been absent from the State of Alaska since 1990, first as a student at the United States Naval Academy and later as a career Marine Corps officer. Despite his absence, Ross maintained Alaska residency and received a permanent fund dividend each year. In 1998 the Alaska Legislature amended the dividend qualifications to provide that anyone who was allowably absent for ten consecutive years would no longer be eligible for dividends. This ten-year rule, however, does not apply to members of the United States Congress, their staffs, or the families of either. In 2009 Ross and his children applied for dividends but were denied because Ross had then been absent for ten consecutive years from the enactment of the ten-year rule. They appealed the denial, but the denial was upheld at an informal agency appeal, a formal agency appeal, and by the superior court. Ross appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ten-year rule violates his equal protection and substantive due process rights. Because the ten-year rule and congressional exception are fairly and substantially related to the legitimate state interests of limiting dividends to permanent Alaska residents and preventing fraud, and because the ten-year rule is rationally related to the legitimate state purpose of reducing administrative burdens, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court as to these claims. View "Ross v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

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

A man filed an application for both occupational and nonoccupational disability benefits from the Public Employees Retirement System, claiming disability from both physical and mental conditions. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim, finding that he failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a physical or mental disability that presumably permanently prevented him from satisfactorily performing his job. The man appealed and the superior court affirmed the ALJ's determination. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the man challenged the ALJ's determination regarding his mental condition. Because the ALJ's written findings were sufficiently detailed to support the ALJ's conclusions, and because substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the man’s mental condition did not amount to an occupational or nonoccupational disability, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision to uphold the ALJ's order. View "McKitrick v. Alaska Pub. Employees Retirement Sys." on Justia Law

A couple had a turbulent relationship over the course of eight months, breaking up and reuniting several times. During the final break-up the woman sought a domestic violence protective order. The superior court granted the protective order based on a finding that the man "used coercion" when, in an effort to get her back, threatened to: (1) provide evidence to the woman’s ex-husband’s lawyers regarding a custody dispute, (2) report the woman’s mother’s alleged marijuana operation to the police, and (3) report the woman to the Office of Children’s Services for sexually abusing her children. The man appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding and that his conduct was constitutionally protected speech. Because there was sufficient evidence to show that the man committed a crime of domestic violence and because he waived his constitutional argument by failing to properly raise it, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "McGraw v. Cox" on Justia Law

When Chad and Jessica Lewis divorced, they participated in a settlement conference to divide their property. Following the settlement conference, the superior court recited a proposed settlement agreement on the record, and both parties agreed to it. Jessica then filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law incorporating terms which differed from the agreement as recited by the court. The superior court accepted Jessica's proposed findings and decree over Chad's objection. Chad appealed. Because the Supreme Court concluded that there was no evidence that the parties agreed to the terms set out in Jessica's proposal and because the terms recited on the record are unenforceable, the Court vacated the superior court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law and remanded the case for a new property division. View "Lewis v. Lewis" on Justia Law

A homeowner sought a declaratory judgment that foreclosure fees were not properly included in the reinstatement amount necessary to halt foreclosure proceedings under Alaska law. The superior court concluded that the foreclosure fees were properly included in the reinstatement amount. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the superior court and therefore affirmed. View "Kuretich v. Alaska Trustee, LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal the issue before the Supreme Court was the superior court's valuation and distribution of marital property in the divorce of Carolyn Vieve Day and Charlie T. Williams. Day appealed on three grounds: (1) she contended that the superior court erred when it found her to be employable; (2) that the facts and equities of this case did not support a 50-50 property division; and (3) that the superior court should not have included in the marital estate funds that had already been spent by the date of trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court remanded for additional findings on the superior court's 50-50 property division because the court did not make sufficient findings to explain why an equal distribution was justified in the presence of facts that appear to favor a greater distribution to Day. Furthermore, the Court concluded that it was error for the superior court to include in the marital estate funds that had already been spent by the time of trial. With regard to Williams, he cross-appealed on three grounds: (1) that the superior court erred when it revalued the parties' duplex after divorce; (2) that the court should not have applied the active appreciation theory when valuing the land on which the parties' paint business was situated; and (3) that the court should not have awarded attorney's fees to Day. The Supreme Court agreed with Williams that revaluing the duplex would have been improper, but because it was not clear whether the superior court actually revalued the duplex, the Court vacated the order to sell the duplex and remanded for reconsideration and clarification. Furthermore, the Court held that it was error for the superior court to award Day the duplex without considering whether she would be able to afford to keep or sell the property. As to Williams's remaining two claims, the Court affirmed the superior court's decisions. View "Day v. Williams" on Justia Law

A couple divorced in 2008, and the mother was granted sole legal custody and primary physical custody of their three children. At the time of the divorce, the superior court stated that if the father met certain conditions he could return to the court to seek modification of the child custody order. In 2009, he filed a motion to modify custody, seeking joint legal custody and increased visitation. The superior court, largely adopting a master's report and recommendations, left sole legal custody and primary physical custody with the mother, but expanded the father's visitation. The father appealed the superior court's 2010 custody modification order. Because the superior court neither committed clear error nor abused its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the majority of the superior court's order. But because the superior court's order failed to explain why it did not order any changes to the father's visitation during the children's summer vacation, the case was remanded for further explanation regarding summer visitation. View "Jack C. v. Tally C." on Justia Law

A father and a mother share joint legal and equal physical custody over their daughter. The father sought to obtain a passport for the daughter, but federal law requires the consent of both parents if the child is under the age of 16. After the mother refused consent, the father brought a motion in the superior court requesting that the mother be ordered to execute a notarized statement of consent for the passport. The superior court denied this motion and the father appealed. Because the superior court abused its discretion in denying the father's motion, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Patrawke v. Liebes" on Justia Law

Loren J. Larson, Jr. was incarcerated at the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Seward. Acting pro se, he filed two separate complaints alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In his first complaint, he alleged that he suffers from paruresis, a condition that makes it impossible for him to urinate in the presence of others, and the correctional facility had violated state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment by failing to accommodate his condition with alternative urinalysis testing procedures. His second complaint alleged that the correctional facility's revised visitor application form for minors violates his state constitutional right to rehabilitation because it is more restrictive than the administrative regulation governing visitation rights. Both complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court consolidated the two appeals to address an issue common to both: the procedure for properly evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint of a pro se prisoner alleging constitutional violations. The Court took the opportunity to emphasize that a complaint must be liberally construed and a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is viewed with disfavor and should rarely be granted. Because both of Larson's complaints alleged facts which, if proven, were sufficient to entitle him to some form of relief, and because the Court found no merit in the arguments that Larson lacked standing or was otherwise barred from bringing a direct cause of action for these alleged constitutional violations, the Court reversed the dismissal of both of Larson's complaints. View "Larson v. State, Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law