substitution of judgment standard in Alaska

2018Res., 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)). 9 Id. (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)); Exxon Corp. v. State, 40 P.3d 786, 792 (Alaska 2001) (“Interpretation of a contract is a question of law that is not within the department’s special expertise or skill.”). 10 City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987)). -9- 7283 light of preced

2013Comm'n v. Municipality of Anchorage, 902 P.2d 783, 785 (Alaska 1995) (citing Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987)) (applying the substitution of judgment standard of review to the issue of whether the Alaska Public Utilities Commission has authority to order a refund, because it is a question of law not involving agency expertise). 21 . 20 AAC 25.990(70). 22 .

2015Co. of Alaska v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960, 965 (Alaska 1983)). 14 707 P.2d 870, 876 (Alaska 1985). -7- 7028 Thurston v. Guys With Tools, Ltd., we held that whether the agency “applied the correct legal standard” was a “question of law that [did] not involve agency expertise.”15 Thus, we will review the narrow issue of the correct application of the law under the substitution of judgment standard.

1998The substitution-of-judgment standard is appropriate “where the knowledge and experience of the agency is of little guidance to the court or where the case concerns ‘statutory interpretation or other analysis of legal relationships about which courts have specialized knowledge.’ ” Earth Resources Co. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960, 965 (Alaska 1983) (quoting Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906, 916 (Alaska 1971)).

2022Res., 335 P.3d 1088 , 1100­ 03 (Alaska 2014). 150 Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906, 911 (Alaska 1971). -50- 7583 not failed to consider an important factor in making its decision.”151 But questions of constitutional interpretation are reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.152 2.

1998The substitution-of-judgment standard is appropriate “where the knowledge and experience of the agency is of little guidance to the court or where the case concerns ‘statutory interpretation or other analysis of legal relationships about which courts have specialized knowledge.’ ” Earth Resources Co. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960, 965 (Alaska 1983) (quoting Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906, 916 (Alaska 1971)).

2018STANDARDS OF REVIEW We “independently review the merits of an administrative determination.”7 We have “recognized four principal standards of review for administrative decisions: (1) the substantial evidence standard applies to questions of fact; (2) the reasonable basis standard applies to questions of law involving agency expertise; (3) the substitution of judgment standard applies to questions of law where no expertise is involved; and (4) the reasonable and not arbitrary standard applies to review of administrative regulations.”[8] “Questions of contract interpretation generally raise ques

2015We have held that the substitution of judgment standard is appropriate “where the case concerns ‘statutory interpretation or other analysis of legal relationships about which the courts have specialized knowledge and experience.’ ”13 In City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska we held that because “our decision require[d] interpretation of statutory and case law, we [did] not defer to the City’s administrative expertise.”14 And in 8 Id. (quoting Grimmett, 303 P.3d at 487 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 Handley v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 838 P.2d 1231, 1233 (Alaska 1992). 10

2000See Madison v. Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game, 696 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1985).

1999See Madison v. Alaska Dep’t of Fish and Game, 696 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1985).

2025Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011). 23 Id. 24 Grimmett v. Univ. of Alaska, 303 P.3d 482, 487 (Alaska 2013). -8- 2074 reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.” 25 Under this standard, we apply our own interpretation of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue.26 DISCUSSION Roseanne, still self-represented, maintains that she is not liable for any of the 13 police responses deemed excessive by the hearing officer.

2015Grimmett v. Univ. of Alaska, 303 P.3d 482, 487 (Alaska 2013) (''The substitution of judgment standard ... applies where the agency's expertise provides little guidance to the court or where the case concerns statutory interpretation or other analysis of legal relationships about which courts have specialized knowledge and expertise." (quoting N. Alaska Envil.

2025Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011). 23 Id. 24 Grimmett v. Univ. of Alaska, 303 P.3d 482, 487 (Alaska 2013). -8- 2074 reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.” 25 Under this standard, we apply our own interpretation of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue.26 DISCUSSION Roseanne, still self-represented, maintains that she is not liable for any of the 13 police responses deemed excessive by the hearing officer.

2025Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011). 23 Id. 24 Grimmett v. Univ. of Alaska, 303 P.3d 482, 487 (Alaska 2013). -8- 2074 reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.” 25 Under this standard, we apply our own interpretation of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue.26 DISCUSSION Roseanne, still self-represented, maintains that she is not liable for any of the 13 police responses deemed excessive by the hearing officer.

1993Phillips v. Houston Contracting, Inc., 732 P.2d 544, 546 (Alaska 1987).

1993Phillips v. Houston Contracting, Inc., 732 P.2d 544, 546 (Alaska 1987).

1992Norton v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 695 P.2d 1090, 1092 (Alaska 1985).

1992Norton v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 695 P.2d 1090, 1092 (Alaska 1985).

2024For the most part the Corporation was not a party to subsequent proceedings. 33 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 324 P.3d 293, 298 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624, 630 (Alaska 2011)). -16- 7694 decisions depending on the subject of review.” 34 On questions of law involving “agency expertise or the determination of fundamental policies within the scope of the agency’s statutory functions,” we apply the reasonable basis standard of review.35 When questions of law do not involve the agency’s expertise “[w]e apply the

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW “When the superior court is acting as an intermediate court of appeal in an administrative matter, we independently review the merits of the agency or administrative board’s decision.”9 When interpreting “questions of law where no agency expertise is involved,” we apply “the substitution of judgment standard.”10 “The 8 Kennedy v. Jarvis, No. S-17553/17684 (Alaska Supreme Court Order, May 21, 2020). 9 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 324 P.3d 293, 299 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624, 630 (Alaska

2024For the most part the Corporation was not a party to subsequent proceedings. 33 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 324 P.3d 293, 298 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624, 630 (Alaska 2011)). -16- 7694 decisions depending on the subject of review.” 34 On questions of law involving “agency expertise or the determination of fundamental policies within the scope of the agency’s statutory functions,” we apply the reasonable basis standard of review.35 When questions of law do not involve the agency’s expertise “[w]e apply the

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW “When the superior court is acting as an intermediate court of appeal in an administrative matter, we independently review the merits of the agency or administrative board’s decision.”9 When interpreting “questions of law where no agency expertise is involved,” we apply “the substitution of judgment standard.”10 “The 8 Kennedy v. Jarvis, No. S-17553/17684 (Alaska Supreme Court Order, May 21, 2020). 9 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 324 P.3d 293, 299 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624, 630 (Alaska

2019Dev., Div. of Ins., 171 P.3d 1110, 1115 (Alaska 2007). 26 See City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (“If no agency expertise is involved in the agency’s interpretation, we apply the substitution of judgment standard.

2019Dev., Div. of Ins., 171 P.3d 1110, 1115 (Alaska 2007). 26 See City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (“If no agency expertise is involved in the agency’s interpretation, we apply the substitution of judgment standard.

2019Dev., Div. of Ins., 171 P.3d 1110, 1115 (Alaska 2007). 26 See City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (“If no agency expertise is involved in the agency’s interpretation, we apply the substitution of judgment standard.

2019See City of Valdez v. State , 372 P.3d 240 , 246 (Alaska 2016) ("If no agency expertise is involved in the agency's interpretation, we apply the substitution of judgment standard.

2005Ctr. v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 2 P.3d 629, 633 (Alaska 2000) (noting that we review an "agency's interpretation of . . . non-technical statutory terms under the substitution of judgment standard"). [4] Holding v. Municipality of Anchorage, 63 P.3d 248, 250 (Alaska 2003). [5] DeShong, 77 P.3d at 1234 (quoting Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787 (Alaska 1996)). [6] Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787 (Alaska 1996). [7] AS 23.30.215(a)(2). [8] AS 23.30.215(a)(4). [9] AS 23.30.395(33). [10] AS 23.30.395(19). [11] AS 01.10.040(a).

2005Ctr. v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 2 P.3d 629, 633 (Alaska 2000) (holding that "[w]e review [an] agency's interpretation of ... non-technical statutory terms under the substitution of judgment standard”). 6 .

2024Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011). 9 Griswold v. City of Homer, 55 P.3d 64, 68 (Alaska 2002). 10 Id. (quoting S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168 , 173 n.12 (Alaska 1993)). 11 Balough, 995 P.2d at 254 . 12 Marathon Oil Co., 254 P.3d at 1082 (quoting Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Hammond, 726 P.2d 166, 175 (Alaska 1986)). 13 Oakly Enters., LLC v. NPI, LLC, 354 P.3d 1073, 1079 (Alaska 2015); Griswold v. Homer City Council, 310 P.3d 938, 941 (Alaska 2013). -8- 7721 was arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper motive.” 14 But “[i]nterp

2017Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011) (citing Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Hammond, 726 P.2d 166, 175 (Alaska 1986)). 13 Lakloey, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 141 P.3d 317 , 320 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Gunderson v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 922 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1996)). -7- 7148 policy.’ ”14 Questions of constitutional interpretation are also reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.15 IV.

2019Under this standard, we exercise our independent judgment, substituting it ‘for that of the agency even if the agency’s [interpretation] ha[s] a reasonable basis in law.’ ” (quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987))). 27 Planned Parenthood of The Great Nw. v. State (Planned Parenthood 2016), 375 P.3d 1122, 1132 (Alaska 2016). 28 Id. at 1136 . -9- 7334 IV.

2019Under this standard, we exercise our independent judgment, substituting it ‘for that of the agency even if the agency’s [interpretation] ha[s] a reasonable basis in law.’ ” (quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987))). 27 Planned Parenthood of The Great Nw. v. State (Planned Parenthood 2016), 375 P.3d 1122, 1132 (Alaska 2016). 28 Id. at 1136 . -9- 7334 IV.

2018Res., 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)). 9 Id. (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)); Exxon Corp. v. State, 40 P.3d 786, 792 (Alaska 2001) (“Interpretation of a contract is a question of law that is not within the department’s special expertise or skill.”). 10 City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987)). -9- 7283 light of preced

2012See Alaskan Crude Corp. v. State, Dep't of Natural 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)) (When reviewing administrative decisions, "the substitution of judgment standard applies to questions of law where no [agency] expertise is involved."). .

2018Res., 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)). 9 Id. (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)); Exxon Corp. v. State, 40 P.3d 786, 792 (Alaska 2001) (“Interpretation of a contract is a question of law that is not within the department’s special expertise or skill.”). 10 City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987)). -9- 7283 light of preced

2018Res., 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)). 9 Id. (quoting Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2009)); Exxon Corp. v. State, 40 P.3d 786, 792 (Alaska 2001) (“Interpretation of a contract is a question of law that is not within the department’s special expertise or skill.”). 10 City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 246 (Alaska 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987)). -9- 7283 light of preced

2017Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011) (citing Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Hammond, 726 P.2d 166, 175 (Alaska 1986)). 13 Lakloey, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 141 P.3d 317 , 320 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Gunderson v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 922 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1996)). -7- 7148 policy.’ ”14 Questions of constitutional interpretation are also reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.15 IV.

2017See Lakloey, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 141 P.3d 317 , 320 (Alaska 2006). 31 .

2013Servs., 57 P.3d 676, 678 (Alaska 2002) ("We apply the substitution of judgment test to legal questions where no agency expertise is involved...."); Mukluk Freight Lines, Inc. v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 516 P.2d 408, 412 (Alaska 1973) ("Courts are the experts in such areas as ... common law, ... judgemade law developed through statutory interpretation, ... and problems transcending the agency's field...." (quoting 4 K.

2008See, e.g., Hawken Nw., 76 P.3d at 376, 382-83 (applying de novo review because the question of law did not involve agency expertise); Samissa Anchorage, 57 P.3d at 678 (applying the substitution of judgment test because no agency expertise was involved). 31 .

1999See Sokolowski v. Best Western Golden Lion Hotel, 813 P.2d 286 , 289 n. 1 (Alaska 1991) (citing Kodiak Oilfield Haulers v. Adams, 777 P.2d 1145, 1148 (Alaska 1989)); see also Madison v. Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game, 696 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1985).

1992Kodiak Oilfield Haulers v. Adams, 777 P.2d 1145, 1148 (Alaska 1989). [4] If a worker does not file suit against a potentially liable third party within one year of the initial workers' compensation award, then the worker's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits acts as an assignment to the employer of any claim against the third party.

1998We employ the substantial evidence test “to review factual determinations made by an agency in the course of its proceedings.” Jager v. State, 537 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Alaska 1975).

1993See Jager v. State, 537 P.2d 1100 , 1107 n. 23 (Alaska 1975) (this court will apply the substitution of judgment test for questions of law not involving agency expertise). 11 .

1993Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979); see, e.g., In re 715 P.2d 1170 , 1172 (Alaska 1986).

1993Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979); see, e.g., In re J.R.B., 715 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Alaska 1986).

1988See Peck v. Alaska Aeronautical, 756 P.2d 282 , 284, 285, (Alaska, 1988); State v. Dupere, 709 P.2d 493, 495 (Alaska 1985).

1988This court has special competency to resolve issues of general statutory interpretation, State v. Dupere, 709 P.2d 493, 495 (Alaska 1985), modified, 721 P.2d 638 (1986), and applies the substitution of judgment test in reviewing them.

1985Wien Air Alaska v. Arant, 592 P.2d 352, 356 (Alaska 1979).

1979We recently upheld the substitution of judgment test for statutory interpretation in Wien Air Alaska v. Arant, 592 P.2d 352, 356 (Alaska 1979). 6 .

1993Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979); see, e.g., In re 715 P.2d 1170 , 1172 (Alaska 1986).

1993Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979); see, e.g., In re J.R.B., 715 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Alaska 1986).

2023Co. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1983)). 21 See AS 44.37.020(a) (“The Department of Natural Resources shall administer the state program for the conservation and development of natural resources, including forests, parks, and recreational areas, land, water, agriculture, soil conservation, and minerals including petroleum and natural gas, but excluding commercial fisheries, sport fish, game, and fur-bearing animals in their natural state.”). 22 See e.g., 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 86.107 (2023); 11 AAC 86.110; 11 AAC 86.215. 23 971 P.2d 1034 (Alaska 1999). -8-

2000See, eg., AU Int'l, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Natural Resources, 971 P.2d 1034, 1037, n. 10 (Alaska 1999) (applying standard to question of whether mining claim owner was deemed to have "abandoned" its claims for purposes of AS 38.05.265); Kachemak Bay Watch, Inc. v. Noah, 935 P.2d 816, 824 (Alaska 1997) (applying independent judgment in determining which DNR actions under AS 38.05.855 were required prior to considering permit applications); Tulkisarmute Native Community Council v. Heinze, 898 P.2d 935, 940 (Alaska 1995) (interpreting statutory requirements for granting water rights permits invo

2017Res., 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011) (citing Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Hammond, 726 P.2d 166, 175 (Alaska 1986)). 13 Lakloey, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 141 P.3d 317 , 320 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Gunderson v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 922 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1996)). -7- 7148 policy.’ ”14 Questions of constitutional interpretation are also reviewed de novo under the substitution of judgment standard.15 IV.

2007AS 36.30.005(c); but see Gunderson v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, 922 P.2d 229, 233 (Alaska 1996) (holding that, despite AS 36.30.005(c), ''the appropriate standard for reviewing the decision of the University's chief procurement officer is the reasonable basis standard rather than the substitution of judgment standard"). 15 .

1991See Earth Resources Co. of Alaska v. State Dept. of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1983); Borkowski v. Snowden, 665 P.2d 22 (Alaska 1983). 10 .

1987Borkowski v. Snowden, 665 P.2d 22, 25 (Alaska 1983).