Opinion ID: 2533990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cashman's Actions Were Legitimate Under the De Facto Officer Doctrine. [9]

Text: The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. [10] The rationale underlying the doctrine is relatively straightforward. As the Second Circuit explained: The de facto officer doctrine was developed to protect the public from the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if actions taken by individuals apparently occupying government offices could later be invalidated by exposing defects in the officials' titles. The doctrine has generally been applied to individuals who are in possession of an office, are performing the duties of the office, and who maintain an appearance of right to the office.[ [11] ] Moreover, actions are considered de facto valid when the defect of authority is merely technical, [12] and whether an officer is in fact ineligible to hold the office is immaterial. [13] We adopted the de facto officer doctrine in Gates v. Tenakee Springs, [14] holding that: an acting judge . . . who has colorable authority due to his or her appointment is a de facto officer whose acts are legally binding on the public and on third persons if done within the scope and by the apparent authority of his or her office, even though the judge's actual authority suffers from a procedural defect.[ [15] ] The appellant in Gates argued that a superior court decision was invalid because the pro tem judge who issued it was not a resident of Alaska as required by Alaska law. [16] In rejecting the appellant's claim, we outlined a series of considerations supporting the application of the de facto officer doctrine. We noted that it makes little sense to waste valuable judicial and private resources to relitigate matters decided by a competent, unbiased judge. [17] Furthermore, the de facto officer doctrine protects third parties and the public by preventing relitigation on the basis of procedural defects irrelevant to the fairness of the substantive proceedings. [18]