Alaska Supreme Court, Alaska Court of Appeals, U.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and U.s. District Court for the District of Alaska Year in Review 1997

• Publication year: 1998

§ 15 Alaska L. Rev. 59. ALASKA SUPREME COURT, ALASKA COURT OF APPEALS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, AND U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA YEAR IN REVIEW 1997

Alaska Law Review
Volume 15
Cited: 15 Alaska L. Rev. 59

ALASKA SUPREME COURT, ALASKA COURT OF APPEALS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, AND U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA YEAR IN REVIEW 1997

Gregory M. Bair, Mercedes J. Caravello, Michael J. Chiavalloti, and Emily J. Grogan

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A. Public Contracting

B. Land Use and Resource Management

C. Administrative Procedure

III. BUSINESS LAW

IV. CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Costs and Attorney's Fees

B. Conflicts

C. Timeliness of Prosecution and Appeal

D. Miscellaneous

V. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

A. Due Process

B. Double Jeopardy

C. Right to Jury Trial

D. Miscellaneous

VI. CRIMINAL LAW

A. Constitutional Protections

B. General Criminal Law

VII. EMPLOYMENT LAW

A. Workers' Compensation

B. Grievance Claims

C. Miscellaneous

VIII. FAMILY LAW

A. Child Custody

B. Child Support

C. Marital Property

D. Miscellaneous

IX. INSURANCE LAW

X. PROPERTY

A. Restrictions on Use

B. Transfers and Conveyances

C. Takings

D. Landlord-Tenant

E. Miscellaneous

XI. TORT LAW

XII. TRUSTS AND ESTATES

APPENDIX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

BUSINESS LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW

EMPLOYMENT LAW

FAMILY LAW

INSURANCE LAW

PROPERTY

TORT LAW

FOOTNOTES [*pg 60]

I. INTRODUCTION

Year in Review contains brief summaries of selected decisions handed down in 1997 by the Alaska Supreme Court, the Alaska Court of Appeals, and the Ninth Circuit. The summaries focus on the substantive areas of the law addressed, the statutes or common law principles interpreted, and the essence of each of the holdings. Space does not permit review of all cases decided by the courts this year, but the authors of the Review have attempted to highlight decisions signaling a departure from prior law or resolving issues of first impression. The cases that were omitted applied well-settled principles of law or involved narrow holdings of limited import. The appendix lists the omitted cases and includes a brief parenthetical synopsis of each. Attorneys are advised not to rely upon the information contained in this review without further reference to the cases cited.

The opinions have been grouped according to general subject matter rather than by the nature of the underlying claims. The summaries are presented alphabetically in the following eleven areas of the law: administrative, business, civil procedure, constitutional, criminal, employment, family, insurance, property, torts, and trusts and estates. [*pg 61]

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A. Public Contracting

In United Utilities, Inc. v. Alaska Public Utilities Commission, ^[1] the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the Alaska Public Utilities Commission's ("APUC's") contract award as being supported by a reasonable basis in the record of decision. ^[2] United Utilities appealed the award of a telephone contract to Summit Telephone Co. by APUC based on the theory that the APUC did not follow its own adjudicative precedents in making its decision. ^[3] Under Alaska Statutes section 42.05.241, "'[w]here competing applicants seek a certificate that may be issued only to one entity, the [APUC] must select the applicant it considers the most fit, willing[,] and able of those who demonstrate threshold levels of fitness, willingness[,] and ability to serve.'" ^[4] Summit proposed a system using underground cable, while United's proposal focused on the use of a microwave system. ^[5] The supreme court held that "the APUC did consider the strengths and weaknesses of each applicant" ^[6] and dismissed the claim after finding a reasonable basis in the record for APUC's decision. ^[7]

In Mortvedt v. Department of Natural Resources, ^[8] the supreme court held that an archaeological report detailing specific archaeological features on a proposed lease site combined with consideration of the likely effects of actual occupancy provided sufficient evidentiary basis for the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") to reject an application for a negotiated commercial lease on the site. ^[9] After an extensive review, DNR denied Mortvedt's application for a negotiated commercial lease because, in part, the type of use requested was inconsistent with the mandates of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. ^[10] On the basis of reports prepared by professional archaeologists, DNR concluded that archeological resources were located in the vicinity of the proposed [*pg 62] site and that a negotiated lease in this area would potentially jeopardize the site. ^[11] The court was persuaded that DNR's decision to deny the commercial lease had a reasonable basis in law and fact and was reflective of a "hard look." ^[12]

The supreme court also rejected Mortvedt's argument that DNR should have been estopped from denying his application for a personal use cabin permit ("PUCP"). ^[13] The court concluded that Mortvedt's reliance on a tentative approval sent to him by DNR was not reasonable and did not support an estoppel claim because the document explicitly stated that adversely affected third parties had the right to appeal an adverse decision. ^[14] The court held that DNR's decision that Mortvedt's use of the site would conflict with public interest should be sustained. ^[15] The court further held that the fact that DNR did not discover the archeological significance of Mortvedt's site until after DNR had tentatively approved his application for a PUCP did not preclude subsequent denial of his application because "it does not make sense, on a policy level, to ignore subsequently discovered information which is relevant to . . . DNR's decision." ^[16]

In Eastwind Inc. v. Department of Labor, ^[17] the supreme court concluded that the wage determination provisions of the 1993 amendments to Alaska Statutes section 36.05.010 ^[18] regarding public construction contracts were not applicable to "contracts bid on prior to the effective date of the amendments." ^[19] Prior to the 1993 amendments, all public works construction contractors were required to adjust their wages every time the Department of Labor issued new prevailing wage rates. ^[20] Under the 1993 amendments, wages in public contracts were frozen for the first twenty-four months of a contract. ^[21] Rejecting the argument of Eastwind Inc., a public construction contractor, the supreme court concluded that the amended statute should not be interpreted to apply retroactively to Eastwind's contract because it was entered into prior to the effective date of the amendments. ^[22] The court reasoned that "application of the 1993 amendments to pre-existing contracts [*pg 63] would give a different legal effect to significant pre-enactment conduct" and such a result would be "inconsistent with the statutory presumption against retroactivity." ^[23]

B. Land Use and Resource Management

In Kachemak Bay Watch, Inc. v. Noah, ^[24] the Alaska Supreme Court held that the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") did not follow statutory requirements in identifying appropriate areas for aquatic farming, and therefore the court invalidated DNR's decision to accept applications for aquatic farming throughout Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. ^[25] Alaska Statutes section38.05.855(a) ^[26] required DNR to identify districts where sites for aquatic farming could exist. ^[27] DNR argued that the statute did not require substantive decision-making, ^[28] but the court held that that statute required DNR's designation of Southeast and Southcentral as districts to be a "conscious act and determination." ^[29] In its action, DNR effectively "collapsed the identification and permit processes." ^[30] Accordingly, the court held that "[t]o comply with the statute, DNR must identify districts and then consider . . . what sites within those districts can be developed for aquatic farming." ^[31]

Conversely, the supreme court held that DNR did not need to comply with the state's Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") because "the identification of aquatic farm districts under section 38.05.855(a) does not constitute a regulation under the APA." ^[32] The court noted that a regulation may be present when a "practice implements, interprets or makes specific the law enforced or administered by the state agency" or when a "practice affects the public or is used by the agency in dealing with the public." ^[33] Although it was a "close question," the court held that DNR was not required to comply with the APA in identifying districts. ^[34]

In Ellis v. Department of Natural Resources, ^[35] the supreme [*pg 64] court affirmed the Department of Natural Resources's ("DNR") decision to close state land to new mineral entry, finding that the decision was reasonable and supported by evidence in the record, was preceded by adequate notice, and was within DNR's constitutional and statutory authority. ^[36] DNR had concluded that the land in question had "significant surface uses" that would be incompatible with mining, such as fishing, boating, and hunting. ^[37] The court upheld this conclusion as reasonable and held that a miner has no property right to a claim on state...