Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532 (Alaska 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532 (Alaska 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, 2009–2016 · …we apply our independent judgment in determining mootness because, as a matter of judicial policy, mootness is a question of law. at p. 534 ✓
74 citation events (74 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Copeland v. Ballard (alaska, 2009-06-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Copeland v. Ballard
Alaska · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we apply our independent judgment in determining mootness because, as a matter of judicial policy, mootness is a question of law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Adoption of C.R. and E.R., Edna L. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS, John L. (Father) v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, In the Matter of Adoption of C.R. and E.R., State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS v. John L., State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS v. Edna L.
Alaska · 2025 · confidence medium
Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 993-94 (Alaska 2006) (citing Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005)). 30 See AS 47.10.005-.142. 31 AS 47.10.005(1). 32 See AS 47.10.011(1)-(12). 33 See AS 47.10.086(a). -11- 7778 reunification efforts fail to remedy the conduct or conditions that made the child unsafe, OCS is directed to petition the court to terminate parental rights if it is in the best interests of the child.34 Termination of parental rights extinguishes the legal relationship between the parent and the child, and OCS retains custody of the ch…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joe C. (Father) v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS
Alaska · 2025 · confidence medium
Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 993-94 (Alaska 2006) (citing Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005)). 11 Id. 12 He cites the requirement in AS 47.14.100(p)(3) that “a court make[] a written finding that release from state custody is in the best interest of the child.” -6- 2068 Monica failed to complete her substance abuse treatment, and could have cast doubt on whether returning custody to Monica was in the boy’s best interests.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Native Village of Kwinhagak v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS (2×)
Alaska · 2024 · confidence medium
Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 996 & n.30 (Alaska 2006)). 21 See Ch. 41 § 28, SLA 2002. 22 Cf. Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (declining to apply the public interest exception to mootness where the relevant statutes had been changed). -10- 7684 was subject to the civil commitment statutes.23 But the issues in that case were framed differently than they are in this case, so that decision does not control our analysis here.24 In this case the Tribe argues that OCS was required to petition for Mira’s involuntary commitment under AS 47.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sitka Tribe of Alaska v. State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and Southeast Herring Conservation Alliance
Alaska · 2023 · confidence medium
“Even when a case is moot, we may address certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.”58 Under the public interest exception, we consider “(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to 55 Alaska Trademark Shellfish, LLC v. State, 91 P.3d 953, 957 (Alaska 2004). 56 Sagoonick, 503 P.3d at 803 . 57 See id. at 796 ; AS 16.05.258; AS 16.05.020. 58 Akpik v. State, 115 P.3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Treg R. Taylor, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska · 2023 · confidence medium
Appeal Attorney General Taylor appeals, asking us to reverse the superior court’s decision that his lawsuit was constitutionally barred, remand for further proceedings on the merits of his claim for declaratory relief under the public interest exception to mootness, and vacate the attorney’s fees award because the Legislative Affairs Agency would no longer be a prevailing party and he otherwise is entitled to protection under AS 09.60.010(c)(2).37 STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review summary judgment rulings de novo.”38 We apply our independent judgment to determine mootness “because, as a …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blythe P. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS
Alaska · 2023 · confidence medium
Advoc., 514 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Alaska 2022) (“[W]e may address certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” (quoting Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005))). -7- 7641 appropriate.” 18 The public interest exception to mootness requires that we consider three factors: “(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Office of Public Advocacy v. Fannie Berezkin f/n/a Fannie Smith and Harold Smith
Alaska · 2022 · confidence medium
However, OPA conceded at oral argument that this case was moot. 5 Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 6 See Harrold-Jones v. Drury, 422 P.3d 568, 570 (Alaska 2018). 7 See Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, Loc. 1324 v. City of Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1167 (Alaska 2002) (“A claim is moot if it is no longer a present, live controversy . . . .”). 8 Akpik, 115 P.3d at 535 . -5- 7610 exception consists of three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harry N. Young, Jr. v. State of Alaska Office of Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer, in an official capacity Division of Elections, and Director Gail Fenumiai, in an official capacity
Alaska · 2022 · confidence medium
He admitted that no live controversy remained, but he urged the superior court to apply the public interest or voluntary cessation exceptions to the mootness doctrine and grant him a declaratory judgment.9 9 “The [public interest] exception consists of three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” Akpik v. Off. of Mgmt. & Bu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steve Bachmeier v. State of Alaska Department of Corrections
Alaska · 2020 · confidence medium
He relies on an unpublished opinion in which another inmate raised due process claims about the destruction of pills 2 Clark v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 156 P.3d 384, 386 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Akpik v. State Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005)). 3 Id. at 387 (quoting Municipality of Anchorage v. Baxley, 946 P.2d 894, 899 (Alaska App. 1997)). 4 Id. (citing Maynard v. State Farm Mut.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Hospitalization of Naomi B.
Alaska · 2019 · confidence medium
For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shawn O'Donnoghue v. State of Alaska, Department of Administration
Alaska · 2018 · confidence medium
Res., Div. of Oil & Gas, 261 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Pasternak v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 166 P.3d 904, 907 (Alaska 2007)). 11 Griswold v. City of Homer, 252 P.3d 1020, 1025 (Alaska 2011) (citing Platz v. Aramburo, 17 P.3d 65, 68 (Alaska 2001)). 12 Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. &Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 13 In re Estate of Maldonado, 117 P.3d 720, 722 (Alaska 2005) (quoting Carr-Gottstein Props., L.P. v. Benedict, 72 P.3d 308, 310 (Alaska 2003)). 14 Dougan v. Aurora Elec.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Ray v. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources
Alaska · 2017 · confidence medium
No exception to the mootness doctrine applies.10 5 See Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (observing that because drilling was complete and well was plugged, no relief could be granted to reverse the issuance of a permit). 6 Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773, 777 (Alaska 2001). 7 See supra note 3. 8 AS 41.35.010-.240. 9 See AS 44.62.220-.305. 10 The only exception the parties briefed was the public interest exception.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Long v. Arnold (2×)
Alaska · 2016 · confidence medium
“We apply our independent judgment in determining mootness because, as a matter of judicial policy, mootness is a question of law.” Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001)). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Mark V.
Alaska · 2016 · confidence medium
Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v, State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 10 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martinez-Morales v. Martens
Alaska · 2016 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001)). 2 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Heather R.
Alaska · 2016 · confidence medium
Id. at 380-81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Reid K.
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Alaska 1995)). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer L. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 9 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Dakota K.
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
Under this exception, the court considers three factors: "(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine." Id. at 380-81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stanley P. Kacher v. Kathy L. Kacher
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
Transmutation “occurs when a married couple demonstrates an intent, by virtue of their words and actions during the marriage, to treat one spouse’s separate property as marital property.”12 In Cox v. Cox we listed four nonexclusive factors superior courts may consider when making this determination: “(1) the use of the property as the parties’ personal residence, . . . (2) the ongoing maintenance and managing of the property by both parties, . . . (3) placing the title of the property in joint ownership[,] and (4) using the credit of the non-titled owner to improve the property.”13…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Janice L. Park v. State of Alaska, Department of Administration, Div
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
The appeal is therefore technically moot because “it is no longer a present, live controversy,” and Park would not be entitled to 1 Alaska Judicial Council v. Kruse, 331 P.3d 375, 379 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 See Carlson v. Renkes, 113 P.3d 638, 642 (Alaska 2005); Gilbert v. Nina Plaza Condo Ass’n, 64 P.3d 126 , 128 n.1 (Alaska 2003) (“We review procedural dismissals for abuse of discretion.”). 3 Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 204 P.3d 1023, 1026 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Delmer M. Ackels v. Kerwin Krause
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
He is representing himself before this court. 10 Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966) (citing RESTATEMENT (FIRST ) OF JUDGMENTS § 11 cmt. b (1942)). 11 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (citing Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 884 (Alaska 2013)). 12 Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001)) (reviewing mootness de novo); Tru-Line Metal Prods., Inc. v. U.S. Fabrication & Erection, 52 P.3d 150, 153 (Alaska 2002) (citing Renwick v. State…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alaska Judicial Council v. Kruse
Alaska · 2014 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001)). 12 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alaska Judicial Council v. Kruse
Alaska · 2014 · confidence medium
But, as we do not reach the merits of the attorney’s fees appeal, we do not attempt to discern her arguments. 11 Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001)). 12 Alaskans for Efficient Gov’t, Inc. v. State, 153 P.3d 296, 298 (Alaska 2007). 13 Schweitzer v. Salamatof Air Park Subdivision Owners, Inc., 308 P.3d 1142, 1147 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n.6 (Alaska 1979)) (continued...) -6- 6938 statute . . . is a question of law to which we apply our indepen…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. Hartig
Alaska · 2014 · confidence medium
Ahtna Tene Nene v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 288 P.3d 452, 459 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005)). 24 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D.L. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS
Alaska · 2014 · confidence medium
Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 993-94 (Alaska 2006) (citing Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005)); see also In re Joan K., 273 P.3d 594, 595-96 (Alaska 2012) (citing In re Tracy C., 249 P.3d 1085, 1089 (Alaska 2011)) (stating that application of mootness doctrine is question of law). -5- 1486 finding because she stipulated that the children were in need of aid about six months before the disposition hearing.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Daniel G.
Alaska · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 380-81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 24 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.A. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, OCS
Alaska · 2012 · confidence medium
Moreover, Mia argues that any such “gaps” in the record “merely demonstrate[] the error of the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the contested permanency plan.” Mia concludes that “the appropriate remedy is to remand this case for a determination whether Melissa is or is not able and does or does not consent to continued OCS custody.” 8 Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001)). 9 Clark v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 156 P.3d 384, 387 (Alaska 2007) (quoting Muni…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alaska Spine Institute Surgery Center, LLC v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
Alaska · 2011 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (quoting Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1168 (Alaska 2002)). 14 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Mullins v. Local Boundary Commission (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska · 2010 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 3 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) E.P. v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute
Alaska · 2009 · confidence medium
Id. at 380-81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bauer v. State, Department of Correction
Alaska · 2008 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005) (citing Ulmer, 33 P.3d at 776 ). 4 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vanek v. STATE, BOARD OF FISHERIES (2×)
Alaska · 2008 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. State, Department of Corrections
Alaska · 2007 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State Office of Mgmt. and Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 4 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute
Alaska · 2007 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005) (citation omitted). 56 . 138 P.3d at 238 . 57 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peter v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GILBERT M. v. State (2×)
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534 (Alaska 2005); Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001). 16 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Grunert
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
Grunert has not alleged that the board did not follow the procedures required by AS 44.62.250 for promulgating an emergency regulation. [24] Grunert I, 109 P.3d at 929 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [25] See Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (explaining that a claim is moot "if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy") (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1195 (Alaska 1995)); O'Callaghan v. State, 920 P.2d 1387, 1388 (Alaska 1996) (explaining that a case is moot "if the party bringing the a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State, Alaska Board of Fisheries v. Grunert (2×) also: Cited "see"
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
Grunert has not alleged that the board did not follow the procedures required by AS 44.62.250 for promulgating an emergency regulation. [24] Grunert I, 109 P.3d at 929 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [25] See Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (explaining that a claim is moot "if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy") (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1195 (Alaska 1995)); O'Callaghan v. State, 920 P.2d 1387, 1388 (Alaska 1996) (explaining that a case is moot "if the party bringing the a…
discussed Cited "see" Bryan S. Perez v. Sally O. Alhiwage
Alaska · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (“A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy.” (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1195 (Alaska 1995))).
discussed Cited "see" Coppe v. Bleicher
Alaska · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Williams, 252 P.3d 998, 1007 (Alaska 2011) ("A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy...." (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed Cited "see" Ahtna Tene Nené v. State, Department of Fish & Game
Alaska · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012 , 1017 & n. 12 (Alaska 2010) (election vote against incorporation mooted petitioner's appeal of the board's decision to grant the petition to put it on the ballot in the first place) (citing Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 534-35 (Alaska 2005) (challenge to agency's decision not to accept comments on proposed exploratory drilling project and to approve project was moot where project was completed and project permits had expired); State, Dep't of Natural Res. v. Greenpeace Inc., 96 P.3d 1056, 1068 (Alaska 2004) (challen…
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Williams
Alaska · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1195 (Alaska 1995)). 35 . - After Phyllis filed this appeal in May 2009, she filed new motions in September 2009 and February 2010 seeking to end future visits.
discussed Cited "see" Harvey v. Cook
Alaska · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Akpik v. State, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (noting that a claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy). 17 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph AKPIK, Lydia Sovalik, Joeb Woods, and Abraham Woods, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Alaska, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Division of Governmental Coordination and Alaska Coastal Policy Council; And Phillips Alaska, Inc., Appellees
S-11078.
Alaska Supreme Court.
Jun 24, 2005.
115 P.3d 532
2005 Alas. LEXIS 83
2005 WL 1491556
Nancy S. Wainwright, Law Offices of Nancy S. Wainwright, Anchorage, for Appellants., Bruce F. Aiders, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Gregg D. Renkes, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee State of Aaska., Kevin D. Callahan, Patton Boggs LLP, Anchorage, for Appellee ConocoPhillips Aas-ka, Inc.
Bryner, Matthews, Eastaugh, Fabe, Carpeneti.
Cited by 51 opinions  |  Published

[*533] OPINION

BRYNER, Chief Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Joseph Akpik, Lydia Sovalik, Joeb Woods, and Abraham Woods (collectively “Akpik”) are landowners on the North Slope, near the village of Nuiqsut. Phillips Alaska requested that the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination determine whether a proposed exploratory drilling project near Nuiqsut was consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The division gave public notice that it would accept comments regarding Phillips’s proposed drilling project. Akpik attempted to submit comments after the deadline for comments passed; the division rejected these comments as untimely. The division then approved the Phillips project. Akpik appeals, arguing that the division failed to give proper public notice of the proposed drilling project and erred in determining that it was consistent with the coastal management plan. Because Phillips has now abandoned the project and because Akpik raises no important legal issues that are capable of avoiding future review, we hold that the case is moot.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In August 2000 Phillips Alaska [1] applied to the Department of Natural Resources (“the department”) for a unit expansion in the Colville River Delta Unit area, near Akpik’s land. The department gave public notice of the requested unit expansion and set a deadline for public comments. It received two sets of public comments on the proposed expansion, one from Akpik and the other from the North Slope Borough. Akpik expressed concern that the unit expansion would limit access to his land. After considering the comments, the department approved the unit expansion. Its decision noted that Phillips had also applied to other agencies for drilling permits and that there would be an opportunity for comments on those applications during the other agencies’ review process. Akpik appealed the department’s unit-expansion decision; the Commissioner of Natural Resources affirmed the decision. Akpik did not appeal this ruling to the superior court.

While the department considered the unit expansion, Phillips also applied to the Division of Governmental Coordination (“the division”) for a consistency review, under the Alaska Coastal Management Program, of a winter drilling exploration project that Phillips proposed in the expanded unit. The division gave public notice of the proposed drilling project and set December 19, 2000, as the public comments deadline for its consistency review. The division later suspended the comment deadline for a brief period when another agency requested supplemental information from Phillips; it then set the new comment deadline at January 8, 2001.

Akpik’s counsel contacted the division eight days after the comment deadline, requesting information about submitting comments on the drilling project. That same day, Akpik’s counsel faxed a set of comments to the division from Akpik. Akpik submitted another set of comments the following week. The division rejected all of Akpik’s comments as untimely. It then issued a final consistency determination approving the Phillips drilling project. During the winter drilling season of 2000-01, Phillips drilled one of five proposed wells and one sidetrack well, then plugged and abandoned the project.

Meanwhile, Akpik appealed to the superior court the division’s decision to reject his comments. He argued that, because he had commented on the unit expansion, the Department of Natural Resources should have notified the Division of Governmental Coordination that he was interested in providing comments on all projects within the unit expansion. Akpik also argued that the division gave improper public notice of the drilling project and therefore erred in rejecting his comments. The superior court affirmed the division’s consistency determination. The court ruled that the department’s decision to approve the unit expansion “was the responsibility of a different agency operating under different regulations” and therefore the department was not required to notify the division of Akpik’s interest. The superi-[*534] or court also ruled that the division gave adequate public notice of the comment deadline, and thus properly rejected Akpik’s comments as untimely. Finally, the court declared that any issue regarding the division’s consistency determination was moot because Phillips had completed and abandoned the project in 2001.

Akpik appeals.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We apply our independent judgment in determining mootness because, as a matter of judicial policy, mootness is a question of law. [2]

IV. DISCUSSION

Akpik’s challenges fall into two categories. First, Akpik argues that the department should not have approved the unit expansion without first determining whether it was consistent with Alaska’s coastal management program. Second, he contends that the division failed to provide proper notice of the comment period and thereby prevented him from commenting on the drilling project. According to Akpik, this flaw invalidates the division’s consistency determination.

A. The Unit Expansion

Akpik argues that because the department’s decision to approve the unit expansion noted “that there were direct environmental and other impacts to the coastal zone,” the department was required to determine whether the unit expansion was consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Alternatively, Akpik argues, the division was required to determine whether the unit expansion was consistent with the ACMP before it approved the Phillips drilling project; its failure to do so amounted to improperly phasing the unit expansion.

Akpik’s arguments lack merit. Under Alaska law, the department rather than the division is the agency that must approve a unit expansion. [3] Here, the department gave public notice regarding the unit expansion in August 2000. Akpik submitted comments, and the department approved the unit expansion in November 2000. Akpik failed to appeal that decision to the superior court. He then belatedly attempted to challenge the department’s decision in his appeal from the division’s consistency determination on the Phillips drilling project. Because the division was not responsible for approving the unit expansion or determining whether the expansion was consistent with the ACMP, Akpik challenged the unit expansion in the wrong appeal. By not appealing the department’s decision, Akpik waived his right to challenge the unit expansion.

B. The Phillips Drilling Project

Akpik next argues that the division did not properly notify the public of the drilling project, so it erred in rejecting his comments. He asserts that the notice should have been published in the Arctic Sounder instead of the Anchorage Daily News and the Fairbanks News-Miner because the Arctic Sounder is a newspaper of “general circulation” in Nuiqsut, [4] whereas the Daily News and the News-Miner are not. Akpik also argues that the division was required to place the notice in three public places in Nuiqsut, and was required to give public notice again after it suspended and then reinstated the comment deadline. Last, Akpik challenges the division’s final decision that the drilling project was consistent with the ACMP, as[*535] serting that the division “failed to take a ‘hard look’ at the ‘whole project’ ” and improperly allowed the use of genei’al concurrences.

Phillips responds that these issues are now moot because the project is completed and the permits have long since expired. We will generally “refrain from deciding questions where the facts have rendered the legal issues moot.” [5] “A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy.” [6] Because Phillips completed the drilling in 2001, and then plugged and abandoned its well, no relief can be granted to reverse the division’s decision to allow the Phillips drilling project in 2000-01.

Akpik argues that Phillips may still drill the remaining wells approved by the division. But the division limited the term of the project to the 2000-01 winter drilling season by requiring that any wells drilled “be completed by April 1[, 2001].” The period of the division’s approval has thus expired and the issues raised by Akpik are moot.

Even when a case is moot, we may address certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. Akpik argues that the public interest exception applies in this case. The exception consists of three factors: “(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.” [7]

Akpik argues that several of the issues he raises are capable of repetition and might repeatedly circumvent review if they are not addressed here. First he points to the issue whether the department should have conducted a consistency review of the unit expansion, arguing that the department will continue to approve unit expansions without determining whether they are consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. But as we noted above, Akpik failed to appeal the department’s decision on the unit expansion and cannot properly raise this issue in proceedings arising from the division’s consistency decision.

Akpik next points to his contention that the division failed to give proper public notice of the drilling project. He contends that the division might continue to publish its notifications in newspapers that are not of “general circulation” in Nuiqsut or fail to provide local notice in Nuiqsut. Akpik also contends that the division’s practice of suspending and restarting public comment periods without new public notice will repeatedly evade review because exploratory drilling projects are very short in duration, and thus will generally be completed before a court can rule on the issue.

But as we noted in Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Fairbanks, “we have refused to apply the public interest exception to unusual factual circumstances that were unlikely to repeat themselves or situations where the applicable statute or regulation was no longer in force....” [8] The Alaska Statutes have been amended to give the department, not the division, authority over consistency reviews. [9] As a result, the regulations that governed the division’s consistency determinations have been repealed. [10] And the department has adopted its own regulations governing consistency determinations. [11] We see no sound basis for concluding that the specific issues disputed here are likely to recur in future cases. Because the public interest exception does not apply in these circumstances, we conclude that Ak-pik’s appeal is moot.

[*536] V. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court’s decision.

1

. Phillips Alaska is now known as ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.

2

. Ulmer v. Alaska Restaurant & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773, 776 (Alaska 2001).

3

. See AS 38.05.180(p) which provides in relevant part:

To conserve the natural resources of all or a part of an oil or gas pool, field, or like area, the lessees and their representatives may unite with each other, or jointly or separately with others, in collectively adopting or operating under a cooperative or a unit plan of development or operation of the pool, field, or like area, or a part of it, when determined and certified by the commissioner to be necessary or advisable in the public interest.

(Emphasis added.)

4

. See City of St. Mary’s v. St. Mary’s Native Corp., 9 P.3d 1002, 1011 (Alaska 2000) (noting that a "newspaper is one of ‘general circulation' in a community when it 'contains news of general interest to the community and reaches a diverse readership’ ”) (quoting Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8, 21 (Alaska 1976)).

5

. O'Callaghan v. State, 920 P.2d 1387, 1388 (Alaska 1996) (quoting Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1985)).

6

. Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1195 (Alaska 1995).

8

. 48 P.3d 1165, 1168 (Alaska 2002).

9

. See AS 46.39.010, AS 46.40.096.

10

. Alaska Reg. 170, pt. 2, July 2004 13-20 (repealing 6 AAC 50).

11

. Alaska Reg. 170, pt. 2, July 2004 71-176 (adopting 11 AAC 110, 112, and 114).