The Year in Review 2001: Cases from 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

• Publication year: 2002

§ 19 Alaska L. Rev. 201. THE YEAR IN REVIEW 2001: CASES FROM 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

Alaska Law Review
Volume 19
Cited: 19 Alaska L. Rev. 201

THE YEAR IN REVIEW 2001: CASES FROM 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

Heather M. Bell

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

III. BUSINESS LAW

IV. CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Costs and Attorney's Fees

B. Miscellaneous

V. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

VI. CRIMINAL LAW

A. Constitutional Protections

B. General Criminal Law

VII. EMPLOYMENT LAW

A. Discrimination

B. Labor Law

C. Workers' Compensation

D. Miscellaneous

VIII. FAMILY LAW

A. Child Support

B. Child Custody

C. Adoption and Termination of Parental Rights

D. Dissolution of Marriage and Distribution of Marital Property

IX. INSURANCE LAW

X. PROPERTY LAW

XI. TORT LAW

XII. TRUSTS AND ESTATESAPPENDIX: CASES OMITTED FROM 2001 YEAR IN REVIEW

FOOTNOTES

[*pg 202]

I. INTRODUCTION

Year in Review contains brief summaries of selected decisions handed down in 2001 by the 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. The summaries focus on the substantive areas of the law addressed, the statutes or common law principles interpreted and the essence of the primary holdings. Attorneys are advised not to rely upon the information contained in this review without further reference to the cases cited. Full summaries of the cases in the Appendix are available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/19ALRYearinReview.

The opinions are grouped by general subject matter rather than 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.

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

In Akootchook v. United States, ^[1] the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a suit brought by five Alaska Natives challenging denial of their applications for land allotments under the Alaska Native Allotment Act ("ANAA"). ^[2] The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals ("IBLA"), reasoning that the claims were barred by the res judicata effect of earlier class action suits challenging the IBLA's denial of applications based on ancestral use of land rather than personal use. The court of appeals found the application of res judicata improper because the ancestral claims common to the classes were not identical to [*pg 203] these plaintiffs' personal claims. ^[3] However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling by deferring to the IBLA's interpretation of the ANAA and the IBLA's requirement that use of the land applied for must be accomplished by an independent individual acting in his own right and not by a minor. ^[4] The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' interpretation that the ANAA focuses on communal rather than personal use as reasonable, but held that "it is not the only reasonable interpretation and does not compel us to strike down the IBLA's interpretation." ^[5]

In Alaska v. EPA, ^[6] the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review three EPA orders which invalidated air quality construction permits. ^[7] The orders determined that a new power generator at Conmico's Red Dog Mine facility did not comply with the Clean Air Act and prevented Conmico from beginning any construction or modification activities associated with the generator. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and Conmico petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the orders. The EPA argued that the court did not have jurisdiction because the orders did not constitute the "final action of the Administrator." ^[8] The Ninth Circuit held that jurisdiction was proper because the orders (1) represented a final position asserted by the EPA on the factual circumstances upon which the orders were predicated; (2) determined the "rights or obligations" of the parties by preventing further construction or modification at the facility; and (3) indicated that "legal consequences will flow" in the form of penalties if Conmico chose to disregard the orders. ^[9] However, the court declined to consider the merits of the case until the EPA submitted a complete administrative record, withdrew the orders in question or filed an enforcement action in the appropriate district court. ^[10]

In Bullock v. State, Dep't of Community and Regional Affairs, ^[11] the supreme court held that when the value of all taxable property of a municipality exceeds the 225% valuation cap on the total property value that municipalities may tax under Alaska Statutes ("A.S.") 29.45.080, the municipality may reduce the value of all taxable [*pg 204] property on a pro-rata basis. ^[12] The court also held that under A.S. 29.45.100, the 225% limitation does not apply to the imposition of taxes for debt service. ^[13] Bullock asserted that section 29.45.080 requires the municipality to reduce the value of oil and gas property taxes so that when added to the full value of all other taxable property, the total amount does not exceed the cap. The State advocated the pro-rata reduction of the assessed value of all the property in the municipality to arrive at the maximum value under the cap, the method practiced since the introduction of the statute. Finding ambiguity in the statutory language and history, the supreme court deferred to the State's long-standing interpretation of the statute and upheld the pro-rata reduction. ^[14] Bullock also argued that municipalities must apply the valuation cap to taxes for repaying bonded indebtedness, but the court held that the valuation cap limitations do not apply to taxes levied to pay the principal and interest on bonds. ^[15]

In In re Friedman, ^[16] the supreme court reduced a sanction entered by the Alaska Bar Association's disciplinary board against an attorney who drew on a settlement trust account to advance funds to his client and to pay himself attorney's fees that were not yet due him. ^[17] Friedman, the attorney for a plaintiff in a complex tort suit, deposited an $81,000 settlement contribution in his client trust account. Friedman drew on that account almost immediately, without informing the other plaintiffs' attorneys. The supreme court agreed with the disciplinary board's finding that Friedman violated disciplinary rules against conduct involving dishonesty, mishandling of client funds and illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. ^[18] However, the court disagreed with the finding that Friedman engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and reduced Friedman's suspension to three years. ^[19] Friedman's initial denial of any wrong-doing was an aggravating factor, but his lack of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of loss or injury to his clients, his commitment to pro bono and public service and the measures he took to remedy the problems caused by his misconduct convinced the court that a three-year suspension was appropriate. ^[20]

[*pg 205]

In Interior Alaska Airboat Assoc., Inc. v. State, ^[21] the supreme court held that the Board of Game's regulations establishing two controlled use areas ("CUAs") are constitutional, are within the Board's authority and are neither arbitrary nor capricious. ^[22] The Noatak and Nenana CUAs restrict hunter access by aircraft in certain areas to help reduce moose harvests, to prevent habitat alteration and to resolve conflicts between hunters using planes and airboats for access and hunters using other transportation. The Interior Alaska Airboat Association challenged the regulations, but the supreme court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the Board. ^[23] The court rejected the Association's constitutional arguments that the regulations deny equal access, finding that the CUAs are open to any resident who wants to use them and that the equipment limitations apply equally to all users. ^[24] The court found that the regulations are within the statutory authority of the Board and are consistent with its conservation and development goals, and that the record showed that the Board's decisionmaking process was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. ^[25]

In Municipality of Anchorage v. Repasky, ^[26] the supreme court reversed the superior court and held that the mayoral invocation of the item veto power to reduce the annual budgets of a school district and the local source appropriations for those budgets was a valid exercise of the mayor's veto power. ^[27] In 1995 and 1997, Mayor Mystrom reduced the budget and local source appropriation as approved by the Anchorage Municipal Assembly. Citizens challenged his authority to veto the district's budgets, claiming that the mayor did not have line item veto authority over the school budget and that state law impliedly prohibited his veto power. The supreme court interpreted subsection 5.02(c) of the Home Rule Charter for the Municipality of Anchorage as granting the mayor both general and line...