*1 1140
Finally, University claims powers that the arbitrators exceeded their by ignoring legal precedent the issues recoverability “consequential” (1) satisfaction;
damages; accord and proof delays; pro liability and (4)
priety of the “total time” meth cost—total od computing the amount of Modern’s
damages. general in both statu rule tory and is that common law arbitration appli
arbitrators need otherwise not follow deciding properly cable law when issues them, they unless are commanded by do so the terms of the arbitration agreement.28 the relevant clause Since command, here contains the arbi no such trators were free to determine merits of Modern’s claims under their own no
tions of fairness.29 court is
affirmed.
James E. DAVENPORT, Appellant, Frederick Commissioner McGINNIS, and Social et Services, al., Appellees.
No. 1942. Supreme Court of Alaska.
May 31, Fundaro, 382, authority per- We realize Lentine v. N.Y.2d this line of 29 328 government 418, 421, 633, tains to N.E.2d 635 standardized contracts. N.Y.S.2d 278 persuades (1972). it But in this It should be noted that a different nevertheless us that acceptance applies case the arbitrators’ into evidence rule where the arbitrators have shown legal through adhere the subcontractors’ claims did not constitute intent doctrine but ques- misapplied Country reversible mistake have the law. error. do not reach the We properly Decatur, tion Mut. Ins. v. Nat’l Bank of of whether such claims could Co. Ill.App.2d 133, 299, (1969). determining 248 N.E.2d considered arbitrators prime damages. contractor’s There seems to no indication such Note, is the case here. See also The Enforce ability Penalty, Reynold’s Estate, of an Arbitrator’s Award of a In re N.C. (1952) Kerelis, ; Note, (1942) ; Judicial Ramonas v. 52 Colum.L.Rev. S.E.2d Merits, Ill.App.2d 262, Review of Arbitration Awards on the 243 N.E.2d (1950). (1968). 63 Harv.L.Rev. 681
H41
OPINION
BOOCHEVER, Justice. having marijuana sold
Admitting to agent, plaintiff-appellant an undercover delinquent was Davenport adjudged James years August 1970. He was then 18 old, preceded the sale his although 18th birthday by Davenport months. was three Health and committed to Depart- denominated the (now Welfare Services) ment of and for Social period indeterminate to extend be- yond birthday. department’s his The 21st committee classification determined that placed Davenport should in the federal juvenile facility Englewood, at Colorado. placed Federal him in authorities the facil- ity young (up for offenders to 27 California, age) Lompoc, finding Daven- port “sophisticated” too and “aggressive” facility. juvenile Davenport com- plained strenuously about his Lompoc. Legislature reduced the 19,1
of maximum commitment to discharged and was Davenport from Lom- poc birthday. two after his weeks 19th release, Upon Davenport ac- filed this damages tion against for the Commissioner Services, superin- of Health Social and McLaughlin Center, tendent of Youth and department, other employees alleg- ing wrongfully placed that he in a fa- cility wrongfully impris- and with adults past birthday. oned his 19th jury trial, At judge the trial summary granted judgment for the defend- wrongful delay ants on issue of ap- Wagstaff, Anchorage, Robert H. for release,2 jury and instructed the that the pellant. separation requiring statute and Pease, Burr, Theodore M. Jr., Pease & prisoners applied adult to “minor [s] Kurtz, Anchorage, appellees. eighteen years age.” jury returned RABINOWITZ, Justice, Before a defense appeals, Chief verdict. now CONNOR, ERWIN, contending judge BOOCHEVER the trial erred in FITZGERALD, granting partial summary judgment be- Justices. 47.10.080(b) argument and AS 47.10.100 were The defendants’ additional summary judgment amended reduce the maximum of re based on a claim sover- eign years. immunity upon. lease indefinite commitment was never ruled The statutes are set out note 3 infra note The sen- sentencing statutes. age maximum reduced the cause the statutes imposed upon a con- tence which authori- deprived the time is determined as of the instant adult over him victed ties of conviction,5 or as the final attained of the offense.6 erroneously jury the time of commission instructed the trial judge *3 applied have juvenile of- These rules been of concerning the between sentencing.7 need not choose We fenders. of criminal act the time of commission the RELEASE DELAY IN UNLAWFUL judgment, since both and the time of final amend- the date the antedated effective of act the Davenport committed When sentencing statute. Under ei- ment the upon ju- jurisdiction the which conferred construction, the statute did ther rule of sentenced, court, was and when he venile Davenport’s sen- retrospectively not affect minor required that a applicable the statute retrospective give refusal to tence. Our delinquent either be committed found to be the max- reducing effect to the amendment Department of and Social Health age imum of commitment is bolstered period for an indeterminate Services 01.10.090, provides: “No statute AS day be- end later the the minor than retrospective expressly unless declared age, placed pro- or on came 21 of be 8 nothing therein.” We find in the amend- period.3 Shortly a after for like bation atory legislation that an intention indicates committed, re- the Davenport was statute that operate the sentence reduction should 19 ducing of release to became retrospectively. Davenport argues that is this a case where effective.4 Nor on amended statute mandated release jurisdiction depart- the continued the day he attained the of 19. predicated upon Davenport’s ment re- maining minor; statutory year the 19 requiring
The statutes
release
age majority
are,
effect,
year
co-existed
the 21
specified
birthday
placed
probation
47.10.080(b),
3.
order tlie minor
on
2
Former AS
eh. 118 SLA
period
part:
1962, provided
pertinent
for an indeterminate
time,
past
specified
not to extend
date
If tlie court finds
is de-
the minor
day
following
past
linquent,
and in no event
tlie
the minor be-
it shall make
of tlie
one
comes 19.
.
.
.
orders:
September
may
Tlie amendment became
effective
1.
court
order the minor com-
25,
Department
1970.
was committed to the
mitted to
Health
department
custody
August 17,1970.
period
Welfare for an indeterminate
past
specified
time not to
or
extend
date
Estrada,
Cal.Rptr.
740,
5. In re
63 Cal.2d
48
any
past
day
tlie minor be-
event
172,
948,
(1965).
P.2d
408
951
21.
.
comes
.
.
F.Supp.
Taylor,
920,
6. United States v.
123
placed
Tlie
2.
court
order the minor
(S.D.N.Y.1954),
mem.,
923
aff’d
227 F.2d
probation,
supervised by
on
partment,
961,
(2d
1955),
denied,
958
Cir.
cert.
353 U.S.
parents,
release
him to his
870,
(1957);
P.
77 S.Ct.
j.143 PLACEMENT IN commitment until LOMPOC maximum 1970.9 Davenport claims that the second sen- Davenport argues power prohibited the de- tence of 47.10.190 department him is to hold co-extensive partment and the federal authorities from superior to ex- power with the court placing Lompoc. him in The statute continuing ercise in his case. states: amendatory legislation argues that the He deprived such juris- court of a minor When the commits diction, was, department and that the like- department, custody the de- wise, custody.10 deprived argu- This juve- partment place the arrange shall point ment misses the sen- home, that once the facility nile in a detention an- tencing acquires jurisdiction place depart- over other suitable which the *4 individual, only an expressly purpose. ju- retroactive ment that A designates for continuing jurisdic- statute could defeat its jail in insti- venile detained a or similar origi- tion for the duration of the request sentence of department tution the the nally imposed. in The statutes force at the in custody shall be a held in room Davenport’s time of juvenile proceedings place apart separate other from jurisdiction upon conferred the adults. Davenport
court until age reached 21.11 protected Davenport claimed that he was We hold that the court and as a under this “juvenile” statute from department continuing jurisdiction placement had in Lompoc he where was Davenport birthday. separated superi- over his until 21st young from adults. The Release jury before that date was ju- within the or court'instructed that: “A department. discretion of relating the court and the venile Statutes Therefore, offenders, wronged by handling was not incar- of is a minor under beyond upon eighteen years Davenport ceration age.” date of which he be- Since came Accordingly, age had attained the at the time of court of 18 properly instruction, effect, summary entered his in judgment in fa- commitment jury vor Davenport’s defendants directed the to find that claim of placement excessive was in violation the stat- incarceration. provides: 9. AS 25.20.010 in if enacted determine continued . person A is is in considered to have the best interest of the minor and arrived at public, years, at the of 19 and to and there- determine if the minor is being fairly. after has control his own actions and treated rights provides: 47.10.100(a) business and has all the AS and is sub- ject jurisdiction to all the liabilities of The citizens of full court retains over the case age, except provided by years as [the otherwise . minor] stat- until becomes 19 age. ute. . . . legislation amending provides provisions 47.10.100(c) The pertinent part: several AS in part adjudicated delinquent the Children’s Act was If omnibus a minor is . . . age-law ambiguities jurisdiction may bill which resolved the court retain over generally eighteenth birthday pur- several codes and all after his harmonized policy pose year supervising rehabilitation, Alaska statutes with the aof his but age majority. Judiciary Report Committee the court’s chapter over him under this beyond [Committee No.] Substitute House Bill never his nineteenth extends H.J.Supp.No.6, birthday. post. 1970 H.J. . . . 47.10.080(f) AS was unaffected the 1970 47.10.080(f) provides pertinent part: virtually amendments. Provisions identical delinquent A minor found to be . excerpted portions to the of AS 47.10.100 long is a ward of the as as he is com- (a) (c) prior legis- existed to the 1970 department department mitted to the or the lation, except juris- that maximum power supervise has the actions. I, diction was 21. 145 SLA Art. cli. court shall review an order made under (b) annually, of this section frequently discussion, supra review the order more 11. See note 10. “ju facility” “juvenile And detention held in custo- requiring juveniles ute defined home” are separate Dav- venile detention from adults. dy place of minors.14 quarter used for detention the instruction enport assigns giving that conclude would have us as error. than other something “juvenile” means a tran appeal taken without This 47.- sentence of AS “minor” the second attempted script. Davenport has not 10.190, clearly means “minor” when it timely objection was that demonstrate section. We first of the same sentence instruction,12 but the subject made to intent of the ignore apparent cannot objection that state has not claimed are to be legislature that the two terms subject the issue was was waived. Since pur identically. Since, for the construed the defendants moved when of contention statute, person poses of the a minor verdict, we shall assume directed cor age, the trial under 18 again preparation during the it was raised rectly “juvenile” is identi instructed that jury. of instructions cally defined.16 determine whether AS 47.10.- We must agreeing dissent while right over the of 18 affords one “juvenile” the terms our conclusion prisoners. adult Dav- separation and “minor” as used in 47.10.190 argument the conten- enport’s is based on as one un synonymous (and defined thus the term to be tion that *5 reads a years age) 18 nevertheless der of from the word a different construction requirement to incarcerate those over 18 A the stat- “minor”. “minor” defined in years apart age facility of in a from adult age.13 person years a of ute as under 18 con offenders. We do here state as not defined, “juvenile” The term is not but juveniles by tended the dissent that “all interchangeably throughout the act is used their age eighteen of before who reach Thus, with the first sentence of “minor”. delinquency hearing should be considered AS 47.10.190states: juvenile treatment in effect unamenable to commits a to When minor merely that the de .” hold We custody department, of per options in partment is limited its partment arrange juve- shall place to taining a facili to the selection of suitable home, nile in a facility detention or oth- by the ty years age for those 18 over er place department suitable which the apart requirement of from incarceration designates purpose [emphasis for that adult offenders. added]. ig previously 15. We have said that we will 51(a) provides part: 12. Civil Rule only plain meaning nore the an enactment party may assign giving No as error the or meaning leads absurd results give where that to an failure to unless instruction enactment. objects or defeats the usefulness of the jury thereto before retires 16, Co., Holiday verdict, Constr. stating distinctly Sherman to consider its (Alaska 1967), quoting Armstrong objects 19 the matter to which he and Corp., Paint Works v. Nu-Enamel grounds objection. & Varnish of his 200, 315, 332-333, 83 305 U.S. S.Ct. 47.10.290(6).
13. AS (1938). L.Ed. as AS 47.10.290 defines these terms fol- by persuaded are which de We cases lows : specific construing “juvenile” in terms fine “juvenile facility” means detention g., See, e. dissimilar Alaska’s. statutes separate quarters jail city a used within F.Supp. 906, States, Fish v. United delinquent minors; detention “minority” (D.Md.1966) (holding of a that the “juvenile detention home” “deten- or juvenile delinquent twen terminates his establishment, separate tion home” is a ex- ty-first birthday, despite fact clusively devoted to the detention of minors per a as 5031 defines U.S.C. part on a of an short-term basis and not Smithers, 18); 256 Ind. State v. son under 512, jail. . . adult . (1971). N.E.2d H45 ERWIN, J., in- whom particular Alaska statutes RABINO- While WITZ, decision, J., joins (concurring part our we are not C. mandate volved dissenting part). general purposes unmindful of juvenile laws: approve While I of the conclusion that delay releasing there was no unlawful chapter is purpose of this to secure custody Depart- from the of the guidance care and for each minor the Services, ment of Health and I can- Social equivalent nearly possible is as not agree Department that the by his to that which should be duty no appellant hold the in an institu- recognized parents. principle juveniles for delinquent tion rather than jurisdiction of the that minors under the permitting imprisonment his in a federal state, subject are wards of the penitentiary. statutes, Under our protec- discipline its its and entitled to may who lead his commits acts which tion, that the state act to safe- eighteen confinement but who becomes injury and guard neglect them from years hear- delinquency due to legal obligation to enforce the ing right place has a to be in a confined them fromor them.17 apart from adult criminal offenders. problems presented Difficult are when one 47.10.190,only As the reads AS who has committed an offense while under eighteen on the minors under the is ordered incarcerated at they right date committed have age. later care must be exercised Great in- potentially malignant isolated from the by Social prisoners. This result is fluences of adult custody ap- provide Services reached their on the texts focus propriate geared institution18 to the dual to the exclu- 47.10.190and 47.10.290(6) constitutional dictates reformation of purposes larger sion of the terms and protection public.19 Reading our statutes as whole. isolation, say these two statutes in I cannot *6 appeal On this we have not been that it is incorrect find that to pertaining confronted with to the issues synonyms. and “minor” are in AS 47.10.190 suitability of the institution which Dav strongly disagree But the I conclusion enport was As to the nar incarcerated.20 legis- meaning that in this common rests presented row issue to us with reference reach- every juvenile lative intent that who “juve court’s definition of the term delinquency hearing es eighteen before his nile”, we find no error. right has in a juvenile no to be confined partial the summary judgment Because institution. was correct and because verdict State, In P. H. v. P.2d 841-842 upon proper defendant was in- rendered (Alaska delinquency approved a 1972), we structions, judgment of the hearing appel- held six months after the court must be affirmed. despite eighteenth birthday lant’s the same statutory restricting delinquency
Affirmed. definition 20. Although transcript no furnished 47.10.280. by stipulation appeal, this exhibits introduced Pre-adjudi Note, 18. See Juvenile Justice and Davenport was detained indicate that while Detention, cation U.C.L.A.Alaska L.Rev. McLaughlin Center, he was the sub at Youth (1972). Many pertain of tlie considerations indicating ject Reports of 18 Youth Incident ing pre-adjudication apply to detention to April September misconduct between 28, placement juvenile. eventual of tlie doubtlessly conduct problem Constitution, I, specifies more dif of his made the art. ficult. that: “Penal administration shall be based principle on the of reformation and protecting public.” need for prosecution criminal eighteen is and a court waived persons under proceedings to procedure applies spe- may This be initiated. accorded age. Juveniles eighteen sensitive, treat- all minors under cial, hopefully more supporting the acts because, by they the time commit virtue ment in courts our who petition. those culpable delinquency Even immaturity, they are less their hearing the waiver reach before susceptible eighteen rehabili- their acts and more amenability for their rea- is held are assessed For these offenders. tation than adult State, 504 P.2d v. others, that to rehabilitation. P. H. sons, in P.H. among we held 1972); R. C. 841-842 (Alaska he commits the child at the time J. 1974). It State, (Alaska juris- bring acts within this manifest would inconsistent with be determines of the children’s court diction does, find, that design as as a juvenile he is treated whether to be “juve- synonymous “minor” and use P.H. offender as adult criminal.1 an intent embodies nile” 47.10.190 juvenile adjudication questions involved juveniles that all who reach light disposition, rather than but hearing eighteen delinquency before their juvenile statutes as purposes of our in effect why should be considered unamenable P.H. good I see no reason whole can in- juvenile be treatment thus can guide our decision here. should not waiver as The carcerated adult criminals. rea- majority, I can find no Unlike hearing requires the to make this judge juvenile arrangement son in of our termination each case. the rationale statutes for conclusion that justification for Looking to the other adjudica- applies to “minors” in P.H. special juvenile procedures lesser cul- —the legisla- dispositions. tions but not in child, pability basis for of the there no every has ture not made a juveniles more severe treatment those juvenile before eighteen who becomes delinquen- eighteen their who reach before should, delinquency as hearing has a cy is mea- hearing. Their blameworthiness law, adjudicated matter of maturity they commit their when sured imprisoned but as an adult. is no reason delinquent acts. There delin- fact that a has committed birthday punish fortuity of a them for the quent eighteenth acts so birth- close to heard. their cases can be day a proper ground incarcer- could be part statutes Another of our adult, ating reading him as an but a legis- support that the lends a conclusion any juvenile statutes forecloses conclusion ap- juveniles like intend that lature did not synony- this reason embodied *7 pellant Davenport pris- in should be held mous use of “minor” and AS declare ons. 47.15.010-47.15.080 AS 47.10.190. Compact on Uniform Interstate Juveniles decide Before the children’s can de- III as the law of this state. Article judge is delinquent, whether a child anyone found juveniles fines to include is subject must determine that he not unamenable linquent jurisdiction and unequiv- then juvenile Article IX is court. he treatment. 47.10.060. If AS provides: ocally found be unamenable to treatment is probable that he there cause to believe That, every possible, it shall be extent party compact this policy states delinquent, the children’s publicity proceedings, AS minimal Not the least the benefits the chil period 47.10.090; (3) proceeding a maximum con dren’s court are the benevolent exceeding specialized the child’s twentieth finement not attitude rehabilitative treat 47.10.080(e). birthday, time At AS ment is entitled confinement. incarceration, Davenport’s appellant max State, In P. v. 842 n. we H. period until confinement continued imum listed other criminal con benefits no birthday. twenty-first juvenile’s prejudice employment § ch. or viction attendant rights, 47.10.080(g); loss of civil SLA AS
H47 delinquent juvenile tent, that no or policy against our statutory extending placed shall prison, be or detained in a language expresses that intent does jail lockup, or or or transported apply.3 detained Accordingly, I would hold as criminal, in association with vicious we did in P. H. v. pur State persons. pose dissolute determining the term “minor” refers to the of the Clearly, compact, juvenile, under this no the time he resulting commits the acts regardless eigh- he of whether has reached his confinement. teen awaiting proceedings, while can imprisoned. detained, If he is must reading, On this the instruction apart be held from adult criminals. court was it erroneous because did not state when the status of “minor” sure, compact To be does dictate detention statute was to be de- the result in this regulates case because it termined. I would set aside the states, Alaska’s relations with other not the and remand the trial below case for new government federal appellant with whom liability on the issue of the defendants’ Davenport placed. though Even peni- confinement in a federal compact control, surely does not it stands tentiary. as an expression policy of our state’s confining juveniles eighteen who reach be-
fore their delinquency hearings. Reading unexceptioned language compact together majority’s with the construction yield apparent 47.10.190 would legislature
intent of juveniles like COMPANY, INC., Wash- adjudicated delinquent who PORT VALDEZ ington corporation, Appellant, in Alaska and confined in this state or through elsewhere contract with the feder- government
al VALDEZ, Alaska, municipal prisons be held in CITY OF al., corporation, Appellees. et company juve- of adult criminals while niles who eighteenth No. 1996. also reach their birth- day adjudication and who are found Supreme of Alaska. Court delinquent here but confined other states May 20, 1974. or vice placed versa must apart adult criminals. any
I cannot conceive of set of circum stances legislature which would lead the this my make distinction. It view that legislature’s intentions can be better as by reading certained and oth AS 47.10.190 apposite er statutes —AS 47.10.060. AS 47.10.280,2and 47.15.010 Articles III and IX—as an interrelated and coherent
whole. good Because there are reasons here to believe that AS 47.10.190 fully 47.10.290(6) read isolation do accurately embody legislature’s in Territory policy of Al- of Alaska Five Gallons AS 47.10.280 declares the broad Reports 1, (1940); cohol, see Alaska’s 10 Alaska 7-8 statutes “to secure Fischer, guidance Homes v. for each minor the care and Aleutian nearly possible equivalent 1966). Compare (Alaska Mines is as to that Bd., parents.” Minerals, P.2d Alaska Indus. which should be Inc. v. 1960). (Alaska