YEAR IN REVIEW Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................. 167 II. A dm inistrative Law ................................................................. 167 A . Public Contracting .................. ..... ............. 167 B. Land Use and Resource Management ........................... 171 C. A dm inistrative Procedure ............................................... 175 III. Business Law ............................................................................ 176 IV . Civil Procedure ........................................................................ 178 A. Timeliness of Prosecution and Appeal .......................... 179 B . M odification of Judgm ent ............................................... 181 C. M iscellaneous .................................................................... 183 V . Constitutional Law .................................................................. 188 A . D ue Process ....................................................................... 188 B . D ouble Jeopardy .............................................................. 191 C. Right to Jury Trial ............................................................ 192 D . M iscellaneous .................................................................... 193 V I. Crim inal Law ............................................................................ 197 A . Constitutional Protections ............................................... 197 1. Search and Seizure ..................................................... 197 2. M iscellaneous .............................................................. 201 B . G eneral Crim inal Law ..................................................... 207 1. Evidence ...................................................................... 207 2. Crim inal Procedure .................................................... 212 3. Sentencing ................................................................... 222 4. Miscellaneous .............................................................. 224 V II. Election Law ............................................................................ 227 V III. Em ploym ent Law .................................................................... 229 A . Workers' Com pensation .................................................. 229 1. Claim s Procedure ........................................................ 229 2. B enefits ........................................................................232 B . Workplace D iscrimination .............................................. 236 C. Collective B argaining ....................................................... 238 165 166 ALASKA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:1 D . G rievance Claim s ............................................................. 240 E . Miscellaneous .................................................................... 242 IX . Fam ily Law ............................................................................... 244 A . Child in N eed of A id ........................................................ 245 B . Child Custody ................................................................... 249 C. Child Support .................................................................... 254 D . Marital Property ............................................................... 260 E . M iscellaneous ....................................................................263 X . Insurance Law .......................................................................... 264 X I. Property .................................................................................... 268 X II. Tax Law .................................................................................... 272 X III. Tort Law ................................................................................... 273 X IV . Trusts and E states .................................................................... 278 A ppendix (O m itted Cases) ............................................................... 279 1997] YEAR IN REVIEW I. INTRODUCTION Year in Review contains brief summaries of selected decisions by the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals. The primary purpose of this review is to familiarize practitioners with significant decisions handed down by these courts in 1996. The summaries focus on the substantive areas of the law ad- dressed, the statutes or common law principles interpreted and the essence of each of the holdings. Space does not permit review of all cases decided by the courts this year, but the authors have at- tempted to highlight decisions signaling a departure from prior law or resolving issues of first impression. The cases that were omitted applied well-settled principles of law or involved narrow holdings of limited import. The appendix lists the omitted cases and in- cludes a brief parenthetical synopsis. Attorneys are advised not to rely upon the information contained in this review without further reference to the cases cited. The opinions have been grouped according to general subject matter rather than by the nature of the underlying claims. The summaries are presented alphabetically in the following thirteen areas of the law: administrative, business, civil procedure, constitu- tional, criminal, election, employment, family, insurance, property, tax, torts, and trusts and estates. II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW In 1996, in the area of administrative law, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed, among other topics, issues of how to determine if a construction project can be considered "public construction," whether the Department of Natural Resources has implied statu- tory authority to regulate royalty rates in state coal leases, and what constitutes an unresponsive bid in a state contract setting. In the land use and management area, the court considered whether state administrative agencies had made sufficient independent de- terminations before awarding contracts and leases and if differen- tiating between recreational and residential users of land in awarding purchase preferences raised constitutional concerns. Fi- nally, in the administrative procedure area, the court addressed is- sues of availability of public documents and applicability of sub- stantive due process rights in attorney disciplinary proceedings. A. Public Contracting In Western Alaska Building & Construction Trades Council v. Inn-Vestment Associates of Alaska,' the Alaska Supreme Court Copyright © 1997 Alaska Law Review 168 ALASKA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:1 held that five factors should be weighed in determining whether state involvement in a construction project is significant enough that the project constitutes "public construction" or a "public work" under the provisions of Alaska's Little Davis-Bacon Act.2 This Act requires that wages paid on public construction projects not fall below a statutory prevailing rate.3 The five factors are the following: (1) the nature of the contract in which the state was a party (whether it was for construction or only for financing); (2) whether the structure under construction was to be used for a pub- lic purpose; (3) whether the state would control the structure after construction; (4) whether the state would continue to fund the project after construction; and (5) the relative portion of financing that the state would provide.4 The court held that these factors, while not exclusive or necessarily of equal weight, should be weighed together rather than individually. Applying these factors, the court found that the actions of the Alaska Railroad Company ("AARC") in joining a partnership for the construction of a Comfort Inn on its property and by investing in the project constituted state involvement significant enough to invoke the Little Davis-Bacon Act. Although factors (4) and (5) weighed against a finding of state involvement, AARC's assump- tion of significant liability, its desire to augment its rail passenger business, its continuing participation and investment in hotel de- velopment, and its substantial power in the partnership led to the conclusion that state involvement in the project was significant In Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. v. Department of Natural Re- sources,8 the supreme court held that the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") has implied statutory authority to regulate royalty rates in state coal leases.9 Usibelli Coal Mine ("UCM") had entered three noncompetitive state coal leases under which a fixed royalty was to be paid to the state per ton of coal. Prior to the expiration of any of the leases' initial twenty-year royalty terms, DNR promulgated new regulations establishing a standard royalty rate of 5% of adjusted gross value.0 1. 909 P.2d 330 (Alaska 1996) (interpreting Alaska State Federation of La- bor v. State, 713 P.2d 1208 (Alaska 1986)). 2. ALASKA STAT. § 36.05 (Michie 1996). 3. See id. at 36.05.010. 4. See Inn-Vestment, 909 P.2d at 333-34 (citing Alaska State Federation, 713 P.2d at 1208). 5. See id.at 333-34 n.9. 6. See id. at 337. 7. See id.at 334-37. 8. 921 P.2d 1134 (Alaska 1996). 9. See id. at 1145. 10. See id. at 1138. 1997] YEAR IN REVIEW Challenging the validity of the new regulations, UCM re- quested royalty relief pursuant to Alaska Statutes section 38.05.140(d)." In addressing UCM's claim that DNR had no leg- islatively granted authority to promulgate the regulations, the su- preme court found implied authorization in Alaska Statutes sec- tions 38.05.020(b)(1),