In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior court,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Alaska Spine Center, LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Medical Center, LLC,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In D&D Services v. Cavitt,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
