Jay Andrew Rabinowitz

Theodore P. Thoma sued Governor Walter J. Hickel, alleging that Hickel and aides retaliated against Thoma's ethics complaint and recall efforts by improperly accessing and publicizing Thoma's criminal records from the APSIN system in a smear campaign. The superior court granted Hickel summary judgment on grounds of public executive immunity from tort suits for discretionary acts within his authority, and the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed that ruling under the standard of viewing facts favorably to the non-moving party. Applying a multi-factor test balancing governmental efficiency against redress for injuries, the court held that immunity shielded Hickel from the state tort and constitutional claims, while also examining whether the conduct supported a federal § 1983 claim or private actions under criminal records statutes.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal lawtorts & liability

This case concerns a bid protest by KILA, Inc., an unsuccessful bidder for a state contract to operate a residential center housing minimum-security prisoners in Fairbanks. After the Department of Corrections issued a Request for Proposals, evaluated submissions from KILA and Allvest, Inc., and awarded the contract to Allvest, KILA challenged the process on grounds including alleged bias by evaluation committee members, improper contract modifications related to facility location, and procedural irregularities. The Department of Administration denied the protest following an administrative hearing, the superior court affirmed that denial, and KILA appealed. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the award, concluding that the procurement process complied with applicable standards, that claims of bias lacked support because evaluators voted independently, and that location changes did not render Allvest non-responsive or require re-bidding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose after Clifford Nukapigak, a parolee with a documented history of violence while intoxicated, murdered three people in a remote Alaska village six months after his mandatory release from prison. The victims' relatives sued the Division of Corrections, the Parole Board, and the State, alleging negligence in the failure to set special parole conditions, provide adequate supervision, return Nukapigak to an isolated community without law enforcement or alcohol treatment, and warn potential victims. The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's denial of the state's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, holding that quasi-judicial immunity shielded Parole Board decisions on conditions but that operational decisions by corrections staff regarding supervision and warnings could give rise to a duty of care under state tort law. The court further reasoned that the discretionary-function exception did not bar all claims and that the parolee's own criminal acts did not necessarily break the chain of causation if the state had negligently failed to mitigate known risks.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal by Lionel Kimble from his conviction for armed robbery after a jury trial. Kimble raised multiple claims of error, including that the indictment was duplicitous for combining robbery and use of a firearm charges in one count, that the victim's identification should have been suppressed due to tainted pretrial contacts, that a photo identification should have been excluded for lack of counsel, that the jury pool should have included additional members of his race, and that the jury's nearly twenty-four hours of deliberation without rest facilities violated due process. The court addressed the duplicitous indictment claim by noting that the trial was presented to the jury solely as one offense of armed robbery under the instructions given, with no possibility of a non-unanimous verdict on separate charges, rendering any error harmless. The opinion indicates that the remaining claims would be analyzed in turn under applicable precedents regarding identifications, jury selection, and trial procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

In Frontier Saloon, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the case concerned whether the Board could suspend a liquor license based on a criminal conviction for allowing a minor on the premises without providing the licensee notice or an opportunity to be heard at the Board's meeting. The superior court had upheld the suspension, finding that the prior district court hearing satisfied due process. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, ruling that due process requires notice and a hearing before the Board because the license represents a valuable property interest and the suspension decision is discretionary rather than automatic under the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

In Hash v. Hogan, the plaintiff sued two Anchorage police officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery after an altercation on her property during their investigation of her son; the officers had entered her yard, questioned her, and arrested her for breach of the peace when she screamed and resisted after ordering them to leave. A first jury awarded her $800 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages, but the trial judge denied judgment n.o.v., granted a remittitur reducing punitive damages to $500 (or a new trial), and cited the plaintiff's own conduct as contributing to the events. The plaintiff rejected the remittitur, a second jury found for the defendants on punitive damages, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge had not abused discretion in ordering remittitur, that jury instructions were adequate, and that other claimed errors were not prejudicial.

torts & liabilityprocedure