Year In Review

Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

Smith v. Department. of Corrections

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Smith v. Department. of Corrections,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

Tobar v. Remington Holdings LP

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Tobar v. Remington Holdings LP,[1] the supreme court held there was not substantial evidence to support Alaska Worker’s Compensation Appeals Commission’s affirmation of a revocation of disability payments. Tobar worked as a housekeeper for Remington Holdings at a hotel. While working in July 2013, she injured her back lifting bed linens and was referred Continue Reading »

Jones v. State, Department of Revenue

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Jones v. State, Department of Revenue,[1] the supreme court held that the requirement for Public Fund Dividends (PFD) eligibility that a person be physically present in Alaska for a cumulative 30 days in the preceding five years (the “30 days/5 years requirement”) is unambiguous and constitutional when applied to exclude PFD eligibility for a Continue Reading »

Graham v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on April 13th, 2020

In Graham v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the supreme court held that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision governing an award of expenses did not apply to firefighter’s request for reimbursement of full attorneys’ fees and costs. Graham is a firefighter employed by the Anchorage Fire Department (AFD). After failing the interview portion of AFD’s engineer Continue Reading »

Public Safety Employees Association, AFSCME Local 803, AFL-CIO v. City of Fairbanks

Posted on December 3rd, 2018

In Public Safety Employees Association, AFSCME Local 803, AFL-CIO v. City of Fairbanks,[1] the supreme court held that a city council’s politically motivated rejection of a collective bargaining agreement is not a violation of Alaska’s Public Employer Relations Act (the Act). In 2013, the City of Fairbanks began negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with Continue Reading »

Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that trial courts, in determining whether to allow self-representation in a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding, must apply the standard developed under McCracken v. State.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of Barry’s children after Continue Reading »

Sanders v. State

Posted on March 30th, 2016

[EVIDENCE LAW] In Sanders v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court improperly excluded evidence on a phone recording given by an unavailable declarant where the recording met the basic circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.[2] On trial for murder, Sanders sought to admit a recording of a phone call to the police placed by Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Fantasies on 5th Avenue, LLC v. State,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

Smith v. Department. of Corrections

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Smith v. Department. of Corrections,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.,[1] 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 Continue Reading »

Tobar v. Remington Holdings LP

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Tobar v. Remington Holdings LP,[1] the supreme court held there was not substantial evidence to support Alaska Worker’s Compensation Appeals Commission’s affirmation of a revocation of disability payments. Tobar worked as a housekeeper for Remington Holdings at a hotel. While working in July 2013, she injured her back lifting bed linens and was referred Continue Reading »

Jones v. State, Department of Revenue

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Jones v. State, Department of Revenue,[1] the supreme court held that the requirement for Public Fund Dividends (PFD) eligibility that a person be physically present in Alaska for a cumulative 30 days in the preceding five years (the “30 days/5 years requirement”) is unambiguous and constitutional when applied to exclude PFD eligibility for a Continue Reading »

Graham v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on April 13th, 2020

In Graham v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the supreme court held that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision governing an award of expenses did not apply to firefighter’s request for reimbursement of full attorneys’ fees and costs. Graham is a firefighter employed by the Anchorage Fire Department (AFD). After failing the interview portion of AFD’s engineer Continue Reading »

Public Safety Employees Association, AFSCME Local 803, AFL-CIO v. City of Fairbanks

Posted on December 3rd, 2018

In Public Safety Employees Association, AFSCME Local 803, AFL-CIO v. City of Fairbanks,[1] the supreme court held that a city council’s politically motivated rejection of a collective bargaining agreement is not a violation of Alaska’s Public Employer Relations Act (the Act). In 2013, the City of Fairbanks began negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with Continue Reading »

Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that trial courts, in determining whether to allow self-representation in a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding, must apply the standard developed under McCracken v. State.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of Barry’s children after Continue Reading »

Sanders v. State

Posted on March 30th, 2016

[EVIDENCE LAW] In Sanders v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court improperly excluded evidence on a phone recording given by an unavailable declarant where the recording met the basic circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.[2] On trial for murder, Sanders sought to admit a recording of a phone call to the police placed by Continue Reading »