Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A quasi-independent governmental agency manages a program designed to improve power generation in small Alaska villages that are located off the electrical grid. One such village believed that the agency did not respect the wishes of village leaders in securing a contract to improve that village's power-generation facility. The village, joined by a company that produces a key component used in improving power generation in village areas, sued the agency. The plaintiffs alleged that the agency erroneously awarded contracts for power generation and that agency employees improperly disclosed the company's trade secrets to its competitor. The superior court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims on motions for summary judgment. Because the Supreme Court agreed there were no disputed issues of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court affirmed the decision of the superior court in all respects. View "Powercorp Alaska v. Alaska Energy Authority" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case were two narrow legal questions arising from the Alaska Records Management Act and the Alaska Public Records Act: (1) when state employees use private email accounts to send and receive email regarding state business, are the emails "public records" under the Public Records Act, and (2) is the use of a private email account to send and receive email regarding state business a per se violation of the Public Records Act's prohibition against obstruction of public access to "public records"? The Court answered the questions as follows: (1) private emails regarding state business are no different from any other records - those records preserved or appropriate for preservation under the Records Management Act are "public records" under the Public Records Act; and (2) the use of private email accounts to conduct state business, alone, is not per se obstruction of access to "public records" under the Public Records Act. View "McLeod v. Parnell" 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

Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. sued the City of Valdez for damages after Valdez applied for a grant from the State of Alaska for funding to convert Sea Hawk's seafood processing facility into a fish meal plant but then declined to accept the $600,000 grant that the State conditionally awarded to Valdez. On pre-trial motions, the superior court dismissed Sea Hawk's claims for breach of contract, breach of an agreement to negotiate, and breach of a duty to negotiate in good faith. Valdez and Sea Hawk filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Sea Hawk's remaining claim for promissory estoppel, which the court denied. Shortly before trial, the court dismissed Sea Hawk's promissory estoppel claim as a discovery sanction. Sea Hawk and Valdez both appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: Sea Hawk's claims were based on statements made and a letter sent by the Valdez City Manager to the owner of Sea Hawk. Because these communications, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Sea Hawk, were insufficient as a matter of law to support Sea Hawk's claims. The Court reversed the lower court's ruling denying Valdez summary judgment on Sea Hawk's promissory estoppel claim.

Offshore Systems – Kenai (Offshore) operates a commercial dock facility on Cook Inlet in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Borough). Nikishka Beach Road traverses Offshore's property. The public has used this road to access the beach since the 1950s. In 2007 Offshore installed a gate blocking the road. The State and the Borough sought an injunction against Offshore, alleging a public right-of-way or prescriptive easement exists over Nikishka Beach Road. Offshore counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment quieting title to its property. The parties disputed the length and history of Nikishka Beach Road. The superior court concluded that Nikishka Beach Road provided public access to the beach on several alternative grounds. Offshore appealed the superior court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a 1980 patent reserved a valid easement for public access to the shoreline of Cook Inlet. The Court held that the superior court had the authority to locate an easement over Nikishka Beach Road. The Court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Borough.

The State of Alaska dismissed an employee for allegedly submitting a falsified timesheet and claiming full pay for a week when she was not working. The employee argued her dismissal violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because a biased supervisor was involved with the termination decision, because the State's investigation was conducted unfairly, and because she was treated differently from similarly situated employees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision that there was insufficient evidence to show a breach of the implied covenant on any of these grounds. The Court also affirmed the superior court's ruling that the employee's unfair labor practice claim was untimely and therefore waived.

"Jeffrey E." appealed his 30-day involuntary commitment order, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the superior court's conclusion that he was gravely disabled. In June 2011 Jeffrey was 20 years old, had recently lost his job due to behavioral difficulties, was in the process of divorcing, and was staying with family members. Jeffrey's family members became concerned about his behavior and brought him to a hospital. Jeffrey's family reported Jeffrey had not been eating, drinking, sleeping, or performing any self-care for several days- " he had more or less remained seated in a catatonic state," to the point of urinating on himself. Jeffrey's family also reported Jeffrey had made comments about others being able to read his mind, had responded aggressively to challenges, and had a family history of mental illness. Because Jeffrey was uncommunicative, hospital staff could not determine if he was actively psychotic. Although unable to articulate how he would behave differently, Jeffrey wanted to go home and "denied thoughts or plans of self harm or harm to others." Hospital staff concluded Jeffrey "may be experiencing symptoms of psychosis but it is difficult to assess" and that "[h]e could benefit from further assessment and stabilization . . . as it is possible he is experiencing psychosis." The superior court granted an ex parte order requiring Jeffrey's transport to Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for examination. A few days later API staff filed a petition for an involuntary 30-day commitment, and the court held a hearing on this petition. Because the superior court did not err in concluding that the respondent was gravely disabled under the required clear and convincing evidence standard, the Supreme Court affirmed the 30-day commitment order.

A State of Alaska employee was discharged. With union representation, the employee unsuccessfully challenged his termination in grievance proceedings. When he later filed suit for wrongful termination, the State subpoenaed the union representative to appear for a deposition with the union's grievance file. The superior court denied the employee's privilege-based request for a protective order. The Supreme Court granted the employee's petition for review to consider whether a union-relations privilege exists in Alaska. The Court concluded the privilege exists by implication of Alaska statutes, and therefore reversed the superior court's ruling and remanded the case for application of the privilege to the discovery dispute.

Holiday Alaska, Inc. (Holiday) sells tobacco at over 25 stores in Alaska, and each store holds a tobacco license endorsement from the State. The State sought to suspend five different Holiday stores' tobacco license endorsements following five separate incidents of Holiday employees' illegal tobacco sales to minors. Each case resulted in conviction: One employee was found guilty by default judgment, three pled guilty, and one was found guilty at trial. Holiday requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in each case. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held two hearings. The ALJ first considered the allegations against Holiday resulting from four of the convictions and issued a consolidated decision; the ALJ later considered the allegations against Holiday resulting from one additional employee's conviction and issued a separate decision. Throughout the proceedings Holiday asserted various constitutional challenges, which the ALJ denied because he could not "rule on a constitutional challenge that seeks to nullify the statute." However, the ALJ allowed Holiday to present evidence relevant to its constitutional challenges to construct a factual record for appeal. Holiday appealed the ALJ decision to the superior court, which rejected Holiday's constitutional arguments. Holiday presented one challenge on appeal: whether AS 43.70.075 violated its due process rights. In "Godfrey v. State of Alaska, Department of Community & Economic Development," the Supreme Court upheld a version of AS 43.70.075, the tobacco endorsement statute, against several due process challenges. While those challenges were pending the legislature amended the statute to address due process concerns. In this opinion, the Court considered due process challenges to the amended statute, and affirmed the superior court's conclusion that the amended statute provides due process.

After the State of Alaska issued a plan for summer-use rules at Willow Lake, at which the State operates as a float plane facility, a non-profit corporation brought suit against the State and a float plane operator, alleging: (1) the State's plan was unconstitutional, improperly issued, and preempted by federal navigable water and aviation laws; and (2) the float plane operations created a public nuisance. The superior court granted summary judgment on the basis that the corporation lacked standing to bring its claims, but further concluded that the use plan was properly issued and not preempted by federal navigable water law. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the use plan was not a regulation required to be promulgated under formal administrative procedures. But because the corporation had associational standing and there was insufficient development of the record for the preemption ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.