Court Opinion

ID: 9561566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:12:04.890329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:57.136655
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the holdings ■ set forth in sections III. A. and B. of the court’s opinion. Because I believe APEA waived the equitable estoppel issue by failing to raise it in the superior court, I concur in the court’s rejection, in Section III. C., of APEA’s equitable estoppel argument. The court reaches the merits of the argument and concludes that the record does not support APEA’s contention that equitable estoppel bars the City from applying section 215(a) to the arbitrator’s result.
The court reaches the merits of the equitable estoppel issue because “The City conceded in oral argument that APEA raised equitable estoppel at the superior court level; *277therefore APEA is not deemed to have waived this argument.” My study of the record leads me to the conclusion that the issue was not adequately raised before the superior court. Thus I would hold that equitable estoppel has been waived by APEA for purposes of this appeal.1 In short, I would not accord controlling significance to counsel for the City’s concession at oral argument before this court that APEA had “tangentially” raised equitable estoppel at the superior court level, because record support is lacking for such concession.

. Nenana City Sch. Dist. v. Coghill, 898 P.2d 929, 934 (Alaska 1995); Carvalho v. Carvalho, 838 P.2d 259, 261 n. 5 (Alaska 1992); Gates v. City of Tenakee Springs, 822 P.2d 455, 460 (Alaska 1991).