Opinion ID: 2630311
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the superior court's findings

Text: According to the state, [n]othing in the record provides a sufficiently clear rationale supporting the conclusion that the nonresident fees lack a reasonable relationship to the allowable differentials, regardless of whether the allowable differentials are applied individually or collectively to the class. We disagree. In Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. State [26] we upheld a superior court order dismissing Alaska Wildlife's complaint, despite the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law accompanying the superior court's order, since the court's rationale could be inferred from the record. [27] We noted that [i]n most cases involving dismissal or summary judgment, the grounds for the superior court's ruling can be discerned from the parties' motion papers. [28] Furthermore, Alaska Civil Rule 52(a) provides that [f]indings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions [for summary judgment]. Applying these standards to the present case, we conclude that the superior court found the state liable to those class members who paid more than the permissible differential. As indicated above, we have already determined in our earlier decisions in this case that nonresident fees should be compared individually rather than collectively to resident fees plus the permissible differential. The superior court applied this rule when it denied the state's motion for summary judgment and granted the class's cross-motion. In its order, which attempts to implement our earlier Carlson decisions and to enforce the stipulation between the parties, [29] the court implicitly held the state liable in every case where an individual nonresident's cumulative payments exceeded the relevant resident fee plus permissible differential. The superior court directed the state to calculate and pay refunds for past overcharges in the following way: The State shall ... summariz[e] each class member's refund with interest, using the allowable fee differential each year ... The individual refund will be calculated as provided in ... the February 12, 2001 Stipulation and Order. In the February 12, 2001 Stipulation and Order, which the parties signed after Carlson II and before Carlson III, the state agreed that it would set off an individual's refund by any underpayment, but agreed that it would not otherwise attempt to recapture previous underpayments by nonresident fishermen. [30] Thus, it is clear that the superior court was both applying our earlier Carlson decisions and holding the state to its earlier stipulation when it held that the state had violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause and for that reason granted summary judgment to class members who had paid more than the permissible differential.