Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Alaska Supreme Court
685 P.2d 715, 1984 Alas. LEXIS 315 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a condemning authority utilizes the 'quick-take' eminent domain procedure, it must contemporaneously file a 'decisional document' that explains the facts and premises for its determination that the taking is necessary and balances the greatest public good with the least private injury.


Facts:

  • The State of Alaska, through its Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), planned to construct the A-C Couplet highway project in Anchorage.
  • To execute the project, the State needed to acquire a parcel of property owned by Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate.
  • The State initiated the 'quick-take' eminent domain procedure by filing a 'declaration of taking' to acquire Ship Creek's property.
  • Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate objected to the State's action, challenging the necessity of the taking and the chosen location for the highway project.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Alaska (DOT/PF) filed a 'declaration of taking' in the superior court (trial court) to condemn property owned by Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate.
  • Ship Creek objected to the taking and moved to have it set aside.
  • The superior court conducted a four-day hearing on the matter.
  • The superior court ruled in favor of the State, refusing to set aside the taking.
  • Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate (petitioner) petitioned the Alaska Supreme Court for review.
  • The Alaska Supreme Court granted the petition for review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Alaska's 'quick-take' condemnation statute require a condemning authority to file a contemporaneous 'decisional document' explaining the basis for its determination that a taking is necessary and balances the greatest public good with the least private injury?


Opinions:

Majority - Rabinowitz, Justice

Yes. When using the 'quick-take' procedure, a condemning authority must file a contemporaneous decisional document explaining its actions. The governing statute requires the condemnor to balance the greatest public good against the least private injury, which necessitates reasoned decision-making. A decisional document serves multiple crucial purposes: it facilitates judicial review by showing what factors were considered, ensures careful administrative deliberation, helps property owners assess whether to seek judicial review, and restrains agencies from acting arbitrarily. While courts should not unduly burden agencies with procedural requirements, this rule is a necessary tool for courts to meaningfully review agency compliance with the statute. Requiring such a document ensures that property owners do not have to endure a long and expensive hearing simply to ascertain the basis for the government's decision. Although the court establishes this new rule, it applies it prospectively and affirms the lower court's decision in this specific case, finding the State had adequately considered all alternatives.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a new, judicially created procedural safeguard for property owners in eminent domain proceedings in Alaska. By requiring a contemporaneous written justification for a 'quick-take,' the court shifts a significant informational burden from the landowner to the government agency. This holding strengthens procedural due process rights by making it easier and less expensive for property owners to understand the government's reasoning and determine if a legal challenge is warranted. The ruling demonstrates a court's authority to impose procedural requirements on administrative agencies to give substantive effect to legislative commands, even when the statute itself is silent on the specific procedure.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"