Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

An indigent prisoner appealed two prison disciplinary actions to the superior court. For each appeal the superior court calculated a reduced filing fee. The prisoner failed to pay any filing fees and his appeals were dismissed. On appeal, the prisoner contended that he had no means of paying even the reduced filing fees and argued that the fee statute unconstitutionally deprived him of access to the courts. The Supreme Court agreed with the prisoner: as applied, the applicable statute prevented him from exercising his right of access to the courts in violation of the Alaska Constitution's due process provision. The Court reinstated the prisoner's appeals. View "Barber v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her child. On appeal, she questioned: (1) the child was a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011; (2) that she failed to remedy the conduct that placed the child in need of aid; (3) the finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (4) that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Because all of the superior court’s rulings were supported by the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights. View "Casey K. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A mother and father of two minor children divorced in 2005. The mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children and the father was ordered to pay child support. The father then joined the Army a year later. Five years later, the mother filed a motion to modify the standing child support award, seeking to increase the father's support obligation due to an increase in his income. The father did not respond to the motion to modify until the superior court informed him that it was prepared to award child support in the amount requested by the mother if the father did not file an opposition. The father then opposed the motion, arguing that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protected him from adverse civil actions because he was actively serving in the United States Army and contended that the mother had not properly served him with notice of the modification proceeding. Furthermore, he argued that the superior court should deduct the Basic Allowance for Housing that the father received as a servicemember from his income calculation. The superior court modified the parties' child support award without holding a hearing, ordering the father to pay increased child support. The father appealed, raising three challenges to the superior court's decision. Upon careful consideration of the father's arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court with respect to the father's challenges. View "Childs v. Childs" on Justia Law

Kyle S. appealed a superior court decision that adjudicated his teenage daughter Jane a child in need of aid. Jane was taken into State custody when she was 15 years old, after she reported being physically abused by her stepmother. The superior court based its decision on Jane's propensity to run away; it made no findings about either Kyle or his wife. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Jane had several criminal charges pending. Kyle challenged the trial court's adjudication decision, arguing that the statutory subsection about runaways was unconstitutional as applied to him and that the court incorrectly concluded that the State made active efforts to prevent the family's breakup. Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded Kyle waived his constitutional argument by not raising it earlier and because the superior court's active-efforts decision was supported by the record. View "Kyle S. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Preceding trial, the superior court suggested the parties could introduce evidence regarding an interim custody order at a subsequent hearing, so that they would have more time to reach a final settlement. During the next hearing, both parties expressed some uncertainty about the purpose of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made findings to support a final custody judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that this procedure violated the mother's right to due process of law. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for a new custody trial. View "Debra P. v. Laurence S." on Justia Law

Chloe O. had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues. OCS took Chloe's fifteen-month-old daughter, Ashanti, into emergency custody because of Chloe's drug abuse, suicide attempts, assaultive behaviors, and affinity for unsafe people and situations. OCS made many unsuccessful attempts to assist Chloe in obtaining treatment for her substance abuse issues and, eventually, for her mental health issues. Following a trial, Chloe's parental rights to Ashanti were terminated. Chloe appealed the trial court's termination order on several grounds, one being that OCS failed to try to reunify Chloe's family. Before briefing was completed the parties agreed that the case should be remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider the active efforts question under the correct evidentiary standard. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that OCS had made active efforts to reunify Chloe's family. Chloe appealed the trial court's finding and ultimately, the court's decision to terminate her parental rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed in all respects. View "Chloe O. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights dismissed Gregg Conitz's complaint against his employer, Teck Alaska Incorporated. In his complaint, Conitz alleged the company discriminated in its promotion decisions. The superior court dismissed Conitz's appeal as moot, finding that the same claims had already been decided by a federal court and that the doctrine of res judicata precluded further claims if remanded to the Commission. Conitz appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior courts decision. View "Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights" on Justia Law

A judgment debtor challenged the superior court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside an order permitting the sale of an airplane seized to execute on the judgment against him. At the time of seizure, the airplane was in the process of being reconstructed and did not have certain identifying information attached to it. Third parties claimed an interest in the seized airplane. After an evidentiary hearing the superior court determined that the judgment debtor had an interest in the airplane and permitted its sale. But at that point the underlying judgment was paid by one of the third parties, and the execution sale did not occur. The judgment debtor, joined by the third parties, filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the order regarding ownership of the airplane. The superior court denied the Rule 60(b) motion and awarded attorney's fees to the judgment creditor and against the judgment debtor and the third-party claimants. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of the motion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schweitzer v. Salamatof Air Park Subdivision Owners, Inc." on Justia Law

Frank Griswold made a public records request for emails related to a public bond proposition. The City of Homer produced all of the emails requested, except for certain privileged emails and deleted emails that could not be recovered without expensive software. Griswold sought to compel the records not produced. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient record support for the superior court to decide that the city manager used "good faith and reasonable effort" to comply with the request. View "Griswold v. Homer City Council" on Justia Law

When passing a 1997 ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amended the boundaries of a proposed Downtown Improvement District to exclude some properties on K and L Streets. The building at 420 L Street, the property owned by appellant L Street Investments, was in the original proposal but was subsequently carved out by the Assembly. In 2000 the Assembly extended the life of the District for ten years. Beginning in 2009, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership canvassed businesses hoping to extend the term of the District and expand it to include businesses between I and L Street. After the majority of business owners in the proposed District approved the extension and expansion, the Assembly extended the term of the District and expanded it to include businesses between I and L Streets, including the building at 420 L Street. L Street Investments filed suit, arguing: (1) Section 9.02(a) of the Municipality of Anchorage's Charter did not authorize the Municipality to finance services within the District by an assessment; and (2) the District is a "service area," and AS 29.35.450(c) prohibits the expansion of a service area unless a majority of voters in the area to be added vote in favor of expanding the service area. The Anchorage Downtown Partnership intervened, and all parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Municipality and the Anchorage Downtown Partnership. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "L Street Investments v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law