Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
01/25/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Review of Select 2011 Court Decisions | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2012
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): REVIEW OF SELECT 2011 COURT DECISIONS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During a review of select 2011 court
decisions, discussed the Williams v. Barbee and the
Christoffersen v. State cases.
DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During a review of select 2011 court
decisions, discussed the State v. Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company, the Calvert v. State, and the Monzulla v. Voorhees
cases.
DON BULLOCK, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During a review of select 2011 court
decisions, discussed the Marathon Oil Company v. State case.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:00 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Thompson,
Gruenberg, Holmes, Lynn, and Keller were present at the call to
order.
^OVERVIEW(S): Review of Select 2011 Court Decisions
OVERVIEW(S): Review of Select 2011 Court Decisions
1:04:38 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the only order of business would be a
review of select 2011 court decisions as presented by
Legislative Legal and Research Services staff.
CHAIR GATTO noted that members' packets include a December 2011
legislative report prepared by Legislative Legal and Research
Services containing information about the six cases the
committee would be considering.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a query, mentioned that
legislation has been introduced to address concerns about the
court's decision in Bridge v. State, one of the cases the
committee considered last year and which is outlined on page 8
of the aforementioned report.
1:08:27 PM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
began by explaining that under guidelines established in
AS 24.20.065(a), the aforementioned report is published and
disseminated yearly, thereby providing the legislature with an
opportunity to address any concerns raised by particular court
decisions. When compiling the report, legislative attorneys
review various legal opinions and then make determinations
regarding whether courts and agencies are properly implementing
legislative purposes; whether there are court or agency
expressions of dissatisfaction with Alaska's statutes or common
laws; whether opinions, decisions, or regulations indicate
unclear or ambiguous statutes; and whether the courts have
modified or revised common law.
MS. MISCHEL, referring to the decision in the Williams v. Barbee
case and outlining some of the facts involved in Barbee,
indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately held that in
a custody-modification proceeding, applying the statutory
presumption against awarding child custody to someone with a
history of perpetrating domestic violence (DV) is appropriate,
regardless that the statute addressing initial custody
determinations and outlining the standard for what constitutes
the best interests of the child, and the statute addressing
modifications to custody determinations and containing a
requirement that such a standard be applied, don't cross
reference each other. The court additionally noted that both
statutes serve the same legislative purposes - that of
protecting children and serving their best interests. She then
relayed that in 2010, legislation was passed that specifically
added the presumption against awarding child custody to someone
with a history of perpetrating DV to the statute addressing
custody modifications, and thus further legislative action isn't
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
1:17:40 PM
MS. MISCHEL, referring to the decision in the Christoffersen v.
State case and outlining some of the facts involved in
Christoffersen, indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court
ultimately held that court-appointed child-custody investigators
are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity during the
performance of their duties, and that that same immunity extends
vicariously to the State of Alaska as their employer. She
further indicated that the court also held that the State of
Alaska could not have been held vicariously liable even if the
investigator hadn't been entitled to such immunity. In
conclusion, she indicated that she was merely bringing this
decision to the legislature's attention in case it wished to
address [the issues of immunity and liability] further.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that in Christoffersen, in
affirming the dismissal of the case, the Alaska Supreme Court
was following well-established legal principles, and surmised
that because judicial immunity is absolute immunity, and because
a court's custody investigators serve as an arm of the court, it
logically follows that they should have the same immunity. This
is the law in almost all other states. He offered his
understanding, though, that such immunity would not be available
to someone who was acting ultra vires.
MS. MISCHEL, in response to a question, confirmed that in
Christoffersen, the court considered the ruling in Lythgoe v.
Guinn.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that the committee take no
action with regard to the Christoffersen decision.
1:27:11 PM
DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
referring to the decision in the State v. Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company case and outlining some of the facts involved in
Alyeska, indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately held
that an owner-controlled insurance program written for ongoing
maintenance is not prohibited by AS 21.36.475, and that the
language of that statute was clear enough. He relayed that he
was bringing this decision to the legislature's attention in
case it wished to consider whether [AS 21.36.475 ought to apply]
to an owner-controlled insurance program written for activities
other than that of working on a construction project, and
mentioned that the legislative history of that statute indicates
that the legislature didn't intend for it to apply to an owner-
controlled insurance program written for anything other than
construction projects.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended sending a letter to the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee suggesting that it
review the court's decision in Alyeska.
CHAIR GATTO indicated that the committee would do so.
MR. BAILEY, referring to the decision in the Calvert v. State
case and outlining some of the facts involved in Calvert,
indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court - relying heavily on the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development's (DLWD's) benefit
policy manual for interpretations of how the statutes would be
applied by the DLWD - ultimately held that for purposes of
receiving unemployment benefits, reductions in work hours and
pay do not constitute good cause for quitting. He indicated
that he was bringing this decision to the legislature's
attention in case it wished to consider whether the DLWD's
manual is correctly interpreting the statutes with regard to the
concepts of suitability and good cause, two factors that the
court considered in Calvert.
1:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion that the court's decision
in Calvert be referred to the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee for review. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
MR. BAILEY, referring to the decision in the Monzulla v.
Voorhees case and outlining some of the facts involved in
Monzulla, indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately
held that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission has an
implied discretionary authority to review non-final orders of
the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board; the court based its
holding on the commission's quasi-judicial function and the
effect that delaying some decisions would have. He indicated
that he was bringing this decision to the legislature's
attention in case it wished to consider whether the court
properly interpreted legislative intent to include the
commission's authority to conduct reviews of the board's non-
final orders. He cautioned, though, that if the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission is explicitly denied such
authority, constitutional issues could arise.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission should have that authority, and that the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee has primary
jurisdiction over workers' compensation matters.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON concurred [with the latter point].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion that the court's decision
in Monzulla be referred to the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee for review. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
1:52:29 PM
DON BULLOCK, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
referring to the decision in the Marathon Oil Company v. State
case and outlining some of the facts involved in Marathon,
indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately upheld the
DNR's interpretation that retroactive application of contract
pricing is prohibited by both the statute's use of the word,
"prospective" and the Alaska Land Act's purpose of maximizing
revenue, based upon the fact that the DNR's determination was
longstanding, was within the DNR's jurisdiction, and had a
reasonable basis in statute, though the court also found the
statute itself to be ambiguous. He indicated that he was
bringing this decision to the legislature's attention in case it
wished to consider whether the court's interpretation of the
statute disallowing retroactive application of contract pricing
is consistent with legislative intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion that the court's decision
in Marathon be referred to the House Resources Standing
Committee for review. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Members then referred to the delayed repeals, enactments, and
amendments outlined on pages 1-2 of the aforementioned report,
and indicated that further research on those items would be
conducted.
2:02:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2011OversightReport.pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Calvert v State Dept of Labor.pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Christoffersen v State Court Custody Investigator's Office.pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Williams v Barbee.pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| State v. Alyeska.pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Monzulla v Voorhees Concrete Cutting (2).pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Marathon Oil.pdf |
HJUD 1/25/2012 1:00:00 PM |