District Court, D. Alaska — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Wieler v. United States
District Court, D. Alaska · 2005-01-20 · cited 1×
The case concerns plaintiffs' challenge to the Interior Board of Land Appeals' (IBLA) affirmance of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision declaring their unpatented Silver King lode mining claims null and void. BLM issued a contest complaint alleging insufficient mineral discovery on the claims; after plaintiffs failed to file a timely answer within the 30-day regulatory period, the allegations were deemed admitted and the claims voided under 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.450-6 and 4.450-7. Plaintiffs' later motion for extension was denied as untimely, and the IBLA upheld the default on the ground that the regulations expressly warned of the consequences and provided no authority for post-deadline extensions. On cross-motions for summary judgment limited to the judicial-review claim, the court applied the standard requiring no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the administrative decisions complied with the governing regulations.
propertyprocedurefederal power
In Re the Exxon Valdez
District Court, D. Alaska · 2004-01-28 · cited 20×
The case concerns the punitive damages award stemming from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, which was caused by human error involving a relapsed alcoholic captain and an overworked crew member. After a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages, the court previously reduced it to $4 billion under BMW guideposts for due process review; following the Supreme Court's State Farm decision on punitive damages limits, the Ninth Circuit remanded for reconsideration. The court vacates its prior order but finds that State Farm sharpens focus on the existing factors without changing the outcome, resulting in retention of the $4 billion award based on the high reprehensibility of Exxon's conduct, a reasonable ratio to compensatory damages, and comparable civil penalties. The core reasoning emphasizes Exxon's knowledge of the captain's alcohol issues and the resulting environmental and economic harm without altering the constitutional analysis.
torts & liabilityenvironmentbusiness & regulatory
In Re Exxon Valdez
District Court, D. Alaska · 2002-12-09 · cited 15×
This case involves Exxon's renewed motion to reduce a $5 billion punitive damages award arising from the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in Prince William Sound, Alaska, which spilled approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil. The spill resulted from the combined negligence of a relapsed alcoholic captain whom Exxon continued to employ in a command role despite knowledge of his condition, an overworked third mate, and other operational decisions. Applying the BMW guideposts, the court assessed the reprehensibility of Exxon's conduct, the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages (excluding environmental cleanup costs), and comparable civil or criminal penalties, rejecting Exxon's proposed 2-to-1 ratio as too low given the facts and determining that the award did not require further reduction.
environmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
District Court, D. Alaska · 2002-03-13 · cited 2×
The case involved the Alaska Department of Labor's Employment Security Division moving to partially quash a federal grand jury subpoena seeking unemployment compensation records for an individual designated as RRB, which the state argued were protected from disclosure by a state confidentiality statute. The government opposed the motion, contending that the Supremacy Clause required state confidentiality laws to yield to the federal grand jury's authority. The court denied the motion to quash. It reasoned that the Fifth Amendment establishes the grand jury's broad investigative powers, which preempt conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause, and that courts should defer to the grand jury absent a clear basis for intervention. The decision clarified that state agencies must comply with federal grand jury subpoenas without needing a separate court order.
criminal lawfederal powerprocedure
United States v. Rempel
District Court, D. Alaska · 2001-12-11
The case involves the United States government seeking to collect unpaid federal income taxes assessed against Dietrich Rempel and Mary Rempel for the years 1982 through 1991, along with penalties and interest. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the tax liability counts, awarding judgments of over $1.15 million against each defendant plus interest. The reasoning relies on official IRS Form 4340 certificates that establish the validity of the assessments and notices, which the defendants failed to rebut with evidence, and rejects arguments regarding jury trial rights and jurisdiction as meritless.
taxesfederal power
United States v. Saelee
District Court, D. Alaska · 2001-08-27 · cited 19×
In United States v. Saelee, the defendant was indicted on federal drug charges for importing opium concealed in candy bar packages mailed from Thailand, and the government sought to introduce testimony from a forensic document analyst comparing the defendant's known handwriting exemplars to the address labels on the packages. The government initially planned to have the analyst offer conclusions on authorship but later proposed limiting the testimony to observations of similarities and differences, arguing admissibility under Rules 701, 702, or 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Following a Daubert hearing, the court granted the defendant's motion in limine and excluded the hand printing comparison evidence, finding that the proposed testimony lacked sufficient reliability to qualify as expert opinion under Rule 702, could not be reframed as lay opinion under Rule 701, and was not independently admissible under Rule 901.
criminal lawprocedure