Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal arose from a custody dispute between Susan M. and Paul H. involving: (1) Susan’s motion to sanction Paul for wrongfully denying her visitation; and (2) her motion to enjoin Paul from relocating to California with the children after the 2013-14 school year, a move the superior court previously approved. The superior court denied both motions, and Susan appealed. Though the Supreme Court affirmed, the Court warned that a parent’s unilateral suspension of the other parent’s visitation based on perceived violations of a custody agreement were improper in all but exceptional circumstances. "Even where such circumstances exist, the concerned parent should immediately inform the court of the problem." View "Susan M. v. Paul H." on Justia Law

Property owners granted a utility easement to the City of Wasilla in exchange for the City’s promise to build an access road across their property, subject to obtaining permits and funding. The access road was not built, and the property owners sued the City, claiming that it fraudulently induced them to sign the easement agreement, breached the agreement, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After trial the superior court made findings of fact and conclusions of law about the parties’ negotiations, their reasonable expectations, the key provisions in the easement agreement, and the City’s efforts to satisfy the agreement’s conditions, and it ruled against the property owners on all their claims. The property owners appealed and the City cross-appealed, contending that the property owners’ claims should have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. After review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error with the superior court's findings of fact or final judgment. View "Laybourn v. City of Wasilla" on Justia Law

In April 2011 the City of Petersburg petitioned the State of Alaska's Local Boundary Commission to dissolve the City and incorporate a new borough. In August the Boundary Commission accepted the petition and published notice. In October the City and Borough of Juneau notified the Boundary Commission "of its intent to file an annexation petition that will pertain to some of the same boundaries as are at issue in the petition recently filed by the City of Petersburg." Juneau intended to annex almost half of the area sought for the Petersburg Borough. Juneau requested that the Boundary Commission postpone the Petersburg proceedings to allow for concurrent consideration of the two petitions. Boundary Commission staff recommended denying Juneau’s consolidation request, explaining that the Boundary Commission would have Juneau’s annexation petition, Juneau’s responsive brief in the Petersburg proceedings, and Juneau’s comments, and that during the final hearing the Boundary Commission could amend the Petersburg petition. The Boundary Commission ultimately denied Juneau’s request for consolidation or postponement, with one commissioner noting that "Juneau . . . will have opportunities to comment and [provide] testimony at the hearing." The primary issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the Boundary Commission violated the Alaska Constitution when it approved the incorporation of the new borough over the objection of the existing borough. After review, the Court concluded that the Boundary Commission’s decision complied with constitutional requirements and therefore affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding the Boundary Commission’s incorporation decision. View "City & Borough of Juneau v. Alaska Local Boundary Comm'n" on Justia Law

Dr. Michael Brandner suffered a heart attack in September 2009 and was admitted to Providence Alaska Medical Center for emergency bypass surgery. Dr. Kenton Stephens was the cardiac surgeon who performed the operation; Dr. Robert J. Pease administered anesthesia. Dr. Brandner was also a medical doctor, licensed to practice plastic and reconstructive surgery. Bradner sued the anesthesiologist and medical providers involved in the surgery. The superior court dismissed Bradner’s claims on summary judgment, concluding that Bradner had offered no admissible evidence that the defendants breached the standard of care or caused the patient any injury. On appeal Bradner relied on his expert witness’s testimony that certain surgical procedures were suboptimal and that patients generally tended to have better outcomes when other procedures are followed. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that this testimony was insufficient to raise any issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants had violated the standard of care in a way that caused injury to the patient. View "Brandner v. Pease" on Justia Law

Rowan B., Sr.(father) and Risa F. were the divorced parents of three children: Agnes, Rowan Jr. (Junior), and Saul. After Rowan and Risa divorced, Rowan received custody of their three children as well as custody of Risa’s two older daughters, Aeryn and Reagan. In 2012 Aeryn reported to the police and the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) that she and Reagan had been physically and sexually abused by Rowan over an extended time period. Aeryn also expressed her concern that Rowan was sexually abusing Agnes. OCS filed an emergency custody petition and removed the minor children (Agnes, Junior, and Saul) in June 2012. The children were adjudicated children in need of aid based on findings that the father had sexually and physically abused his daughters. In a criminal proceeding the father was convicted on 29 counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and one count of incest. The father sought a delay of the termination proceedings pending appeal of his criminal convictions, but the superior court denied this request. Rowan appealed the ultimate outcome: termination of his parental rights to his three biological children. He argued that the superior court abused its discretion by denying a continued. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the children’s interest in permanency weighed heavily against delaying the termination proceedings for years while the father pursues his criminal appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rowan B. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

Lee Stenseth was injured at work many years ago. He and his employer, the Municipality of Anchorage, entered into a compromise and release agreement (C&R) in August 1996 in which Stenseth waived all future benefits except medical benefits in exchange for $37,000. Stenseth retired from the Municipality in 1996, but he continued to receive medical benefits for his work-related injury, including narcotic pain medication. Ten years later, Stenseth was charged with multiple felonies related to selling or delivering narcotics that he had acquired, some from forged prescriptions modeled on the prescriptions for his work-related injury. Stenseth pleaded guilty to a number of felonies and served time in jail. He was released in June 2010. The Municipality sought to terminate future workers’ compensation benefits and be reimbursed for the benefits it paid out, alleging that Stenseth obtained those benefits by making a false statement or misrepresentation. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the Municipality’s fraud petition after deciding that the parties had reached an enforceable settlement. The Municipality appealed the dismissal, arguing that any settlement of its fraud petition was void because the settlement did not meet the requirements set out in the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act and the Board’s regulations. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board’s decision. The Municipality appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that the Commission’s interpretation of the statute was incorrect and that the Commission incorrectly interpreted our decisions about estoppel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. View "Municipality of Anchorage v. Stenseth" on Justia Law

In September 2010 RBG Bush Planes, LLC (Bush Planes) allowed two candidates for public office for the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly to travel on a series of preexisting flights throughout the borough. Bush Planes charged the candidates a fraction of the fuel costs associated with those flights. The Alaska Public Offices Commission investigated these charges, determined that Bush Planes’ fractional fuel-cost methodology did not represent a commercially reasonable rate, and assessed a $25,500 fine against Bush Planes for making illegal corporate contributions. Bush Planes appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Commission. Bush Planes again appealed, this time to the Supreme Court, arguing: (1) that the Commission erred when it found Bush Planes had violated Alaska law; and (2) that the fine the Commission imposed was unconstitutionally excessive. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission. View "RBG Bush Planes, LLC v. Alaska Public Offices Commission" on Justia Law

Four Angoon fishermen challenged an Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulation that limits how many fish may be taken annually under a subsistence fishing permit on various grounds after they were charged with taking more salmon than their permits allowed. The district court agreed with their challenge and dismissed the charges. The court of appeals reversed. After its review, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that these harvest limits were regulations that had to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Because the Department promulgated these harvest limits without following the requirements of the APA, the Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court judgments dismissing these charges. View "Estrada v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Anchorage Police Department identified Joshua Richardson as a suspect in a shoplifting incident. When the police went to Richardson’s home to make an arrest, Richardson hid in a crawlspace and allegedly incurred injuries from a police canine. The misdemeanor theft charges against Richardson were dismissed shortly after his arrest. About two years after these events, Richardson filed two civil suits against the Anchorage Police Department, various police officers, the State of Alaska, Best Buy (the store in which he was alleged to have shoplifted), and the Best Buy employee who reported the theft. In separate proceedings, one before Judge Catherine Easter and one before Judge Mark Rindner, the superior court dismissed both complaints as untimely under the two-year statute of limitations. Richardson appealed these dismissals. In the suit before Judge Easter, Richardson argued that the statute of limitations should have been tolled due to his alleged mental incompetency and separation from his legal documents during unrelated incarceration. The Supreme Court concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to these issues, and affirmed the Superior Court as to this issue. In the suit before Judge Rindner, however, there was credible evidence that Richardson filed his complaint before the statute of limitations ran. This created a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the dismissal in that case and remanded for further proceedings to determine when Richardson commenced his suit. View "Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

Tammy Wells and Primo Barile married in 1995 and divorced in 2004. They had a son, born in 1997. Tammy married Lance Wells after her divorce from Primo and had two children with Lance. Tammy and Primo shared physical custody of their son on a “50/50 basis” pursuant to an order entered in January 2009. Neither parent was required to pay child support to the other. The 2009 order required Tammy to apply for their son’s Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs) but divided them equally with Primo. The order also required the parents to keep their son on their health insurance as long as it was available at reasonable cost through their employers, and to share the cost of any reasonable health care expenses not covered by insurance, up to a maximum of $5,000 annually. Tammy appealed a superior court’s grant of a motion to modify child custody filed by Primo. Tammy also challenged the court’s child support order, its order that she reimburse Primo for half their child’s Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs), and a writ of assistance the court issued for the custody order’s enforcement. She also alleged that several of the superior court’s rulings showed judicial bias and a failure to give her the leniency appropriate to her status as a pro se litigant. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court abused its discretion when it ordered Tammy to reimburse Primo for the PFDs without taking into account, as an offset, the amounts that Primo may have owed Tammy for medical care. The Court reversed the judgment on this issue and remanded for further proceedings. On all other issues, the Court found no error and affirmed. View "Wells v. Barile" on Justia Law