In Mallott v. Stand for Salmon,[1] the Alaska Supreme Court held that a ballot initiative effects an unconstitutional appropriation if it transfers state assets into private hand or if it infringes on the legislature’s ability to allocate resources among competing use. In July 2017, Stand for Salmon submitted ballot initiative 17FSH2 to establish a permitting scheme Continue Reading »
In Nageak v. Mallott,[1] the Supreme Court held that (1) election challengers must bring an election contest complaint, rather than a recount appeal, if they are alleging only malconduct, fraud, or corruption in the conduct of an election, and (2) the malconduct must be sufficient to change the result of the election before a new Continue Reading »
In State v. Alaska Democratic Party,[1] the supreme court held the Alaska Constitution’s right of free association allows a political party to open its primaries to registered independent candidates. Alaska requires candidates to either win a party primary or secure a certain number of petition signatures to appear on the general election ballot. In order Continue Reading »
In Eberhart v. Alaska Pub. Offices Comm’n,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that section 15.13.145 of the Alaska Statutes prohibits the use of both a public entity’s cash and its non-monetary resources for the purpose of influencing a state or municipal election of a state or municipal candidate. AS 15.13.145(a)(4) prohibits elected officials from Continue Reading »
In Boiko v. Kapolchok,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in calculating attorneys’ fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82. Boiko and Picarella filed legal malpractice claims against Kapolchok after he represented them in a dental malpractice suit. They contended that Kapolchok withheld information about a favorable summary judgment Continue Reading »
In Whalen v. Whalen,[1] the supreme court held that to obtain a new long-term domestic violence protective order a person must allege a new violent incident that has not previously served as the basis for such a protective order, using incidents that served as the basis for a prior order would violate res judicata. Sarah Continue Reading »
In State v. Doe,[1] the supreme court held individuals convicted out-of-state may only be required to register in Alaska as sex offenders if their conviction was under an out-of-state law “similar” to an Alaskan law. Two cases consolidated on appeal presented similar facts. In the first, John Doe I plead guilty to “communicating with a Continue Reading »
In Brennan v. Brennan,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that to determine whether separate property has been transmuted into marital property through an implied inter-spousal gift, a court must determine whether the owning spouse intended “to donate or convey separate property to the marital unit or marital estate.” Kelly Brennan formed a fishing business Continue Reading »
In Mengisteab v. Oates,[1] the supreme court held that, in deciding child custody when a parent decides to physically relocate, a court must consider the effect the move may have on stability and continuity in a child’s life. Mengisteab and Oates were the separated mother and father of a young child. Mengisteab had primary custody Continue Reading »
In Brooks Range Petroleum Corp. v. Shearer,[1] the supreme court held that the proper venue for tort claims is where the harmful force of the tort first took effect, and that proper venue for contract claims is where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. While weighing a full-time employment Continue Reading »
