Administrative Law
- City of Valdez v. Regul. Comm’n of Alaska
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Madison Detweiler
In City of Valdez v. Regul. Comm’n of Alaska, 548 P.3d 1067 (Alaska 2024), reh’g denied (May 31, 2024), the supreme court held that interested parties must exhaust all reasonably available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of a Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) decision that (1) denied a request for ...
- Lookhart v. State, Division of Corps., Business, & Professional Licensing, Board of Dental Examiners
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Holly Merrill
In Lookhart v. State, Division of Corps., Business, & Professional Licensing, Board of Dental Examiners, 548 P.3d 1094 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that the Board of Dental Examiners did not abuse its discretion when it revoked a dentist’s license after the dentist had been convicted on forty-six ...
- AVCG, LLC v. State
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Cara Shanahan
In AVCG, LLC v. State, 527 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that an agency engages in rulemaking if its interpretation of an existing regulation adds requirements of substance, is unforeseeable, or changes the agency’s approach. (Id. at 281). The Alaska Venture Capital Group, LLC (AVCG) owned interests in ...
- In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2023)
Katie Raya
In In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking, 60 F.4th 583 (9th Cir. 2023), the 9th Circuit held that courts may not vacate agency actions in conjunction with granting requests for voluntary remands without first holding the agency action unlawful. (Id. at 588). The case ...
- Taylor v. Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Olivia Wagner
In Taylor v. Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency, 529 P.3d 1146 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that the attorney general’s common law powers do not allow suit against the legislature. (Id. at 1158). On June 16, 2021, the Alaska Legislature passed a budget bill to fund state government during ...
- Inter-Cooperative Exchange v. United States Department of Commerce
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (2022)
Robert Bulka
In Inter-Cooperative Exchange v. United States Department of Commerce, 36 F.4th 905 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit held that an agency’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is inadequate where it chooses only three search terms which together are not reasonably calculated ...
- Worker’s Compensation Benefits Guaranty Fund v. Adams
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Joe Perry
In Worker’s Compensation Benefits Guaranty Fund v. Adams, 518 P.3d 280 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a worker’s compensation fund seeking to find an injury non-compensable due to intoxication must show that the worker was intoxicated at the time of the incident, and that the intoxication was ...
- Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Department of Revenue
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE
Adam Beyer
In Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Department of Revenue, 488 P.3d 951 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a Department of Revenue advisory bulletin was not a challengeable regulation for the purposes of the state’s Administrative Procedures Act and that the parties’ tax dispute was therefore not ripe. (Id. at 952). ...
- North Slope Borough v. State, Department of Education & Early Development
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Sasha Kahn
In North Slope Borough v. State, Department of Education & Early Development, 484 P.3d 106 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that when summary adjudication has been stipulated to in an agency proceeding, and therefore no factual dispute is up for debate, the hearing officer need only apply a reasonable basis standard in ...
- Espindola v. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Sasha Kahn
In Espindola v. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc., 486 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that while the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board has authority to weigh the evidence provided by medical opinions, if the Board’s crucial findings are not supported by the record, under the substantial evidence standard, it has committed error. ...