Administrative Law

  • Basey v. State, Department of Public Safety
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Savannah Artusi In Basey v. State, Department of Public Safety, the supreme court held that state employee disciplinary records are confidential and thus exempt from disclosure under the Alaska Public Records Act. After being convicted of federal crimes, Basey requested records related to his investigation, including disciplinary records for two Alaska State Troopers. Although the ...
  • West v. Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Mike Keramidas   West v. Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority In West v. Alaska Mental Health Tr. Auth., 467 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that the Land Office of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority acted in the Trust’s best interest when it sold five lots of land. (Id. at 1066). Louis and Stacy ...
  • Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT LAW Kate Goldberg   Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights In Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 476 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held a commission’s dismissal of a discrimination complaint was not so arbitrary and capricious as to offend due process (id. at 1127) and there was no substantial evidence ...
  • Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior court
    In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior court, the supreme court held that neither the Public Defender Agency (Agency) nor the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) were statutorily required to pay the costs of an indigent juvenile who is unable to afford the travel expenses to his adjudication trial. J.B., a juvenile facing delinquency charges ...
  • Alaska Spine Center, LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Medical Center, LLC
    In Alaska Spine Center, LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Medical Center, LLC, the supreme court held that the common usage of the term “same community” applies for the purposes of the statutory exemption allowing ambulatory surgical facilities to relocate within the same community without obtaining a certificate of need from the Alaska Department of Health and ...
  • D-D Services v. Cavitt
    In D&D Services v. Cavitt, the supreme court held that a decision remanded to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) by the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (Commission) is not final for purposes of appeal to the supreme court, but nevertheless affirmed the Commission’s attorneys’ fees award. In 2017, Cavitt sought workers compensation from his ...
  • Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State
    In Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State, the supreme court held that the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board (Board) did not abuse its discretion in denying a strip club’s liquor license renewal application where there was ample evidence of safety, management, and employment concerns and the club received adequate due process. Fantasies On 5th ...
  • Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage
    In Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not err in sentencing Eric Scott Penetac under the Anchorage Municipal Code rather than under state law where municipal code authority was not prohibited. Penetac was found guilty of two counts of child neglect under the Anchorage Municipal Code ...
  • Smith v. Department. of Corrections
    In Smith v. Department. of Corrections, the supreme court held that administrative hearings satisfied any due process requirements prior to ending prisoner employment. The Alaskan Department of Corrections placed two prisoners in administrative segregation after finding potential escape instruments allegedly belonging to the prisoners. The prisoners lost their jobs within the prison as a result ...
  • State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.
    In State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc., the supreme court held that the superior court has proper appellate jurisdiction in cases reviewing interconnected agency actions when at least one action is considered a “final order,” and when the issue on appeal is whether the agency had the authority to address the subject in ...

Administrative Law

  • Basey v. State, Department of Public Safety
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Savannah Artusi In Basey v. State, Department of Public Safety, the supreme court held that state employee disciplinary records are confidential and thus exempt from disclosure under the Alaska Public Records Act. After being convicted of federal crimes, Basey requested records related to his investigation, including disciplinary records for two Alaska State Troopers. Although the ...
  • West v. Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Mike Keramidas   West v. Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority In West v. Alaska Mental Health Tr. Auth., 467 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that the Land Office of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority acted in the Trust’s best interest when it sold five lots of land. (Id. at 1066). Louis and Stacy ...
  • Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT LAW Kate Goldberg   Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights In Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 476 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held a commission’s dismissal of a discrimination complaint was not so arbitrary and capricious as to offend due process (id. at 1127) and there was no substantial evidence ...
  • Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior court
    In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior court, the supreme court held that neither the Public Defender Agency (Agency) nor the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) were statutorily required to pay the costs of an indigent juvenile who is unable to afford the travel expenses to his adjudication trial. J.B., a juvenile facing delinquency charges ...
  • Alaska Spine Center, LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Medical Center, LLC
    In Alaska Spine Center, LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Medical Center, LLC, the supreme court held that the common usage of the term “same community” applies for the purposes of the statutory exemption allowing ambulatory surgical facilities to relocate within the same community without obtaining a certificate of need from the Alaska Department of Health and ...
  • D-D Services v. Cavitt
    In D&D Services v. Cavitt, the supreme court held that a decision remanded to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) by the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (Commission) is not final for purposes of appeal to the supreme court, but nevertheless affirmed the Commission’s attorneys’ fees award. In 2017, Cavitt sought workers compensation from his ...
  • Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State
    In Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State, the supreme court held that the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board (Board) did not abuse its discretion in denying a strip club’s liquor license renewal application where there was ample evidence of safety, management, and employment concerns and the club received adequate due process. Fantasies On 5th ...
  • Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage
    In Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not err in sentencing Eric Scott Penetac under the Anchorage Municipal Code rather than under state law where municipal code authority was not prohibited. Penetac was found guilty of two counts of child neglect under the Anchorage Municipal Code ...
  • Smith v. Department. of Corrections
    In Smith v. Department. of Corrections, the supreme court held that administrative hearings satisfied any due process requirements prior to ending prisoner employment. The Alaskan Department of Corrections placed two prisoners in administrative segregation after finding potential escape instruments allegedly belonging to the prisoners. The prisoners lost their jobs within the prison as a result ...
  • State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.
    In State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc., the supreme court held that the superior court has proper appellate jurisdiction in cases reviewing interconnected agency actions when at least one action is considered a “final order,” and when the issue on appeal is whether the agency had the authority to address the subject in ...