Latham v. Palin
251 P.3d 341
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Latham sued the governor and attorney general for failing to challenge the 1995 legislation changing the court of appeals’ jurisdiction over excessive-sentence appeals.
- Superior Court dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel; Latham appeals.
- This is Latham’s third related action: 1998 post-conviction relief sought withdrawal of a pre-1995 plea; 2006 class action; both prior suits addressed the 1995 changes.
- Earlier litigation concluded Latham was not injured by the 1995 changes; the appellate and supreme court rulings framed injury and reviewability for pre/post-1995 versions of AS 12.55.120(a).
- In the current suit, damages claims are premised on injury from the 1995 change; declaratory relief claims seek invalidation of the statute; defendants asserted collateral estoppel, discretionary immunity, and other defenses.
- The supreme court affirms dismissal, applying collateral estoppel to preclude damages claims and discretionary immunity to bar declaratory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Latham's damages claims precluded by collateral estoppel? | Latham argues new actions relitigate injury from the 1995 change. | Collateral estoppel bars claims already decided that he was not injured by the 1995 changes. | Yes; collateral estoppel bars damages claims. |
| Are Latham's declaratory judgment claims barred by discretionary immunity? | Seeks judicial declaration about constitutional validity of the 1995 law. | ATCA discretionary immunity shields planning/policy decisions from declaratory relief. | Yes; discretionary immunity bars declaratory relief claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeffries v. Glacier State Tel. Co., 604 P.2d 4 (Alaska 1979) (collateral estoppel elements and preclusion principles)
- Midgett v. Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility, 53 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2002) (collateral estoppel final judgment essential to preclusion)
- Gates v. City of Tenakee Springs, 822 P.2d 455 (Alaska 1991) (immunity in declaratory relief context)
- Industrial Indem. Co. v. State, 669 P.2d 561 (Alaska 1983) (discretionary immunity under ATCA applies to planning decisions)
- State v. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1972) (planning vs. operational decisions; discretionary function immunity)
- Walt v. State, 751 P.2d 1345 (Alaska 1988) (policy of signaling discretionary immunity rationale)