Opinion ID: 2350715
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attorney's fee proceedings

Text: Final judgment on all issues relating to the sales tax and capital projects issues was entered on July 30, 2009. On August 13, 2009, the Borough filed a motion for attorney's fees. ACT opposed the motion, arguing that it is a public interest non-profit corporation and that it was attempting to protect [citizens' and residents'] right of initiativea right granted to them under the Constitution and the laws of the [S]tate of Alaska. In a March 18, 2010 decision, the superior court found that the capital project approval issue implicat[ed] federal and state constitutional concepts and concluded that ACT was protected pursuant to AS 09.60.010(c)(2) from having to pay an attorney's fee award on that issue. [9] On March 31 the Borough filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the superior court failed to consider this court's rulings establishing that the municipal initiative power is statutory, not constitutional, and that to be protected by AS 09.60.010(c)(2) a litigant must fail to prevail in asserting a constitutional right rather than simply lose a case where any constitutional concepts are implicated. The superior court denied the Borough's motion for reconsideration on May 3, 2010, explaining that ACT did raise state constitutional issues regarding the initiative restrictions on the capital projects and supermajority issues, and adding that the superior court had referenced numerous constitutional provisions in its decision on the capital project approval issue. ACT appeals the superior court's July 30, 2009 final judgment denying ACT summary judgment on the merits of both the sales tax and capital project voter approval issues (case number S-13596). The Borough cross-appeals the superior court's March 18, 2010 decision awarding ACT attorney's fees on the capital project approval issue (case number S-13883).