Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following their separation, two parents initially shared physical custody of their daughter. But after a domestic violence incident, the superior court awarded the mother sole legal and primary physical custody, while allowing the father telephone calls and supervised visitation. The father subsequently filed a motion to modify custody, seeking a return to equal physical custody. The superior court denied this request, concluding that the daughter's emotional needs and the father's unwillingness to foster a strong relationship between the mother and daughter supported the continuation of supervised visitation. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in considering the child's best interests, and because it articulated a plan through which the father could achieve unsupervised visitation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Matthew P. v. Gail S." on Justia Law

This case centered on a challenge to the Board of Game's 2010 amendments to regulations for subsistence caribou hunting in Game Management Unit 13, known as the Nelchina basin. The Alaska Board of Game promulgated regulations managing caribou hunting in Game Management Unit 13. The regulations allowed hunting under three types of permits: a community harvest subsistence permit, an individual subsistence permit, or a non-subsistence drawing permit. A hunter challenged the regulations on constitutional and statutory grounds, arguing that they wrongfully interfered with his subsistence hunting rights, and also sought a judicially imposed public reprimand of an assistant attorney general representing the Board. The superior court dismissed the claim against the attorney, granted summary judgment upholding the regulations, and awarded partial attorney's fees to the State and an intervenor defendant. The hunter appeals. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and summary judgment orders, but vacated the attorney's fees awards and remand for further proceedings. View "Manning v. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game" on Justia Law

Jennifer and Adam were the parents of three minor children: a daughter, Andrea, and two younger boys. The children were Indian children as defined in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The State's Office of Children's Services (OCS) took three minor children into emergency custody, then sought a court order granting OCS temporary custody, asserting there was probable cause to find the children in need of aid. A standing master determined that no probable cause existed and recommended that the three children be returned to their mother's custody. The State objected to the master's recommendation, and the superior court reviewed and rejected it, finding that there was probable cause. The mother filed this appeal, asking the Supreme Court to hold that masters have the authority to return children to their homes without judicial review. Before the State filed its brief, the superior court dismissed the underlying case, making this appeal moot. After its review, the Supreme Court applied the "public interest" exception to the mootness doctrine and affirmed the superior court's ruling. View "Jennifer L. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over whether the owner of a wood chipper could be held jointly and severally liable, along with two property owners, for damages caused to their property by the chipper's leak of diesel fuel. The chipper's owner had leased it to another person, who abandoned it. The property owners claimed they were only severally liable, if at all, for a portion of the damages and that the chipper's owner was liable for the rest. A jury found that the chipper did not contaminate one of the two properties, but as for the other the jury found its owner jointly and severally liable, along with the chipper's owner. The superior court then equitably allocated damages among the liable property owner, the owner of the chipper, and the chipper's lessee. This allocation left the property owner liable for most of his own loss. property owners appealed the equitable allocation of damages, and an evidentiary ruling and the award of attorney's fees. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court properly construed the governing statutes and the evidence rules and that its award of attorney's fees was not an abuse of discretion. View "Oakly Enterprises, LLC v. NPI, LLC" on Justia Law

"Dakota K." appealed a 30-day involuntary psychiatric commitment. The issue this case presented for the Alaska Supreme Court's review was whether the State or the respondent had the burden to prove the existence of prior involuntary commitments. The Court held that this burden rested with the respondent, who must make some evidentiary showing that the commitment was his first in order to raise the presumption of collateral consequences. " Involuntary commitment proceedings are necessarily expeditious. There is a limited amount of time for the respondent's attorney to meet the client, obtain legal and medical records, and marshal a defense to the underlying allegations of mental illness and risk of harm to self or others. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that the attorney would also present evidence during the commitment proceedings to establish collateral consequences for the purposes of a potential appeal. But after the trial court proceedings have concluded it would be entirely appropriate for the respondent to seek an evidentiary hearing in the superior court on the issue of collateral consequences. This evidentiary hearing would be for the limited purpose of obtaining findings from the court that the commitment was the first involuntary one or, if it were not the first, that there are other collateral consequences flowing from the commitment that would be avoided if it were reversed on appeal." In this case, Dakota never alleged, much less made an evidentiary showing suggesting, that his involuntary commitment at API was his first and therefore gave rise to a presumption of collateral consequences. Nor did he allege that the exception should apply because of any actual collateral consequences. Dakota's appeal of the superior court's order was deemed moot and the appeal dismissed. View "In Re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Dakota K." on Justia Law

A bidder for mineral leases failed to submit a declaration he was a citizen older than 18 and thus qualified to bid. The Director of the Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mining, Land & Water later allowed the bidder to remedy the omission, but on appeal the Department’s Commissioner determined that the bidder’s omission was not immaterial or due to excusable inadvertence, and reversed the Director. As a result, the bidder lost his leases. The bidder unsuccessfully appealed to the superior court and appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court found that because the Commissioner’s factual findings were based on substantial evidence in the record, his interpretations of regulations were not legally erroneous, and his application of law to facts was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion, and affirmed. View "Pacifica Marine, Inc. v. Solomon Gold, Inc." on Justia Law

Borrower-appellant Maria Duenas-Rendon sued her mortgage lender, Wells Fargo Bank, claiming that its foreclosure on her home violated the terms of their contract. On appeal, she argued that the lender waived its right to foreclose when it continued to accept monthly mortgage payments after recording a notice of default, leading her to believe that it no longer intended to foreclose. The lender responded that it closely followed the contractual procedures for default and acceleration and that its acceptance of payments did not waive its right to foreclose in light of the parties' agreement permitting it to do so once the loan was in default. The superior court granted summary judgment to the lender. On appeal, appellant argued the superior court erred in granting summary judgment and also that it should have addressed an outstanding discovery motion before deciding the case in the lender's favor. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Duenas-Rendon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Luis Rodriguez was a gay Hispanic man employed by Delta Airlines, Inc. In November 2010 Rodriguez filed a complaint with the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, accusing Delta of race-based discrimination. Rodriguez alleged that Delta (1) "did not delete the position of a Caucasian coworker with less seniority," and (2) "recently brought another Caucasian employee with less seniority . . . back from layoff status." After an investigation, the Commission concluded that Rodriguez's racial discrimination allegations were not supported by substantial evidence, and the Commission dismissed the complaint without holding a hearing. The employee appealed to the superior court, and the superior court affirmed the Commission's conclusion that the employee's complaint was not supported by substantial evidence. The employee appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court agreed that the employee failed to present the Commission substantial evidence of race-based discrimination, it affirmed the superior court's decision affirming the Commission's dismissal. View "Rodriguez v. Alaska Commission for Human Rights" on Justia Law

A father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his daughter. He claimed the trial court violated his due process rights when it allowed the termination trial to conclude in his absence without first asking him directly if he wished to testify. Kendra G. was born in 2012, and considered an Indian child as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Both parents had a history of alcohol abuse, and father-appellant Remy M. had a history of domestic violence. The Office of Children's Services (OCS) initially became involved in this case after receiving reports alleging that mother Vera was abusing and neglecting her children. Although Remy has been able to maintain sobriety in a highly controlled environment, such as a correctional facility, he has repeatedly relapsed, including a few months before the termination trial. At the time of trial, Remy had not completed the recommended long-term substance abuse treatment or addressed the behavioral health issues that cause him to relapse. OCS presented numerous exhibits and the testimony of 16 witnesses to support its claim that termination of Remy's parental rights was necessary because of Remy's substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal behavior leading to incarceration, and parenting deficiencies. Remy attended most of the trial. On the third day of trial, Remy's attorney asked the court if Remy could be absent from trial on the following day to attend an integrated mental health and substance abuse assessment. The trial court responded that Remy did not have to be present because the case was civil, not criminal. The trial court ultimately found "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Kendra was in need of aid, and that even though Remy wanted to be a good father, he had been unable to follow through with any changes in his life to become an adequate parent for her in the near future. Remy did not appeal the substance of the trial court's decision. Instead he argued that the trial court violated his right to due process because it failed to advise him that he had a right to testify and because it permitted his attorney to waive that right in his absence. Remy argued in the alternative that even if he was not denied due process, "[the Supreme Court] should remand the case for development of the record in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Remy M. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs." on Justia Law

An insolvent subcontractor failed to pay its sub-subcontractor, and the sub-subcontractor sought payment directly from the general contractor through arbitration. The general contractor declined to participate. The arbitrator awarded damages to the sub-subcontractor, who filed an action to confirm the award with the superior court. The sub-subcontractor also brought a negligence claim, contending that the general contractor knew of its subcontractor's financial instability and negligently failed to ensure that the sub-subcontractor would be paid. The superior court granted summary judgment to the general contractor on both the enforceability of the arbitration award and the viability of the negligence claim. The sub-subcontractor then appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the superior court correctly decided that whether the general contractor effectively exercised its contractual right to decline arbitration is an issue of arbitrability, and that the general contractor had no extra-contractual duty in tort to guarantee its subcontractor's payment obligations. View "GeoTek Alaska, Inc., v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc." on Justia Law