May v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

175 P.3d 1211 (Alaska 2007) · Supreme Court of Alaska · December 21, 2007 · No. Nos. S-12451, S-12452

Summary

Bert May challenged the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission’s denial of his applications for entry permits in Alaska’s Southern Southeast Inside sablefish longline and pot fisheries. The Alaska Supreme Court held that CFEC lacked substantial evidence to determine that May was ineligible to apply for a longline permit and remanded for consideration of his challenge to the maximum number of longline permits. The court affirmed the denial of eligibility for the pot fishery and upheld CFEC’s refusal to award participation or vessel-investment points.

Holdings

  1. CFEC erred in determining that May was not eligible to apply for a permit in the longline fishery because its findings that he did not participate in the fishery and did not prove a commercial harvest were not supported by substantial evidence.
  2. CFEC properly denied May past-participation points based on extraordinary circumstances.
  3. CFEC properly denied May fifteen vessel-investment points.
  4. May had an interest sufficient to challenge the maximum number of permits in the longline fishery, even though he was entitled to no points.
  5. CFEC properly determined that May was not eligible to apply for a permit in the pot fishery.
  6. May lacked standing to challenge the maximum number of permits in the pot fishery because he could not show prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported CFEC's determination that May was ineligible to apply for an entry permit in the Southern Southeast Inside longline fishery.
  2. Whether CFEC properly denied May past-participation points based on extraordinary circumstances.
  3. Whether substantial evidence supported CFEC's denial of vessel-investment points.
  4. Whether May had an interest sufficient to challenge the maximum number of permits in the longline fishery.
  5. Whether substantial evidence supported CFEC's determination that May was ineligible to apply for an entry permit in the pot fishery.
  6. Whether May had standing to challenge the maximum number of permits in the pot fishery.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (6)

  • Cleaver v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, 48 P.3d 464, 465, 467-70 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
  • Handley v. State, Department of Revenue, 838 P.2d 1231, 1233 (Alaska 1992)(followed)
  • Simpson v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, 101 P.3d 605, 608-11 (Alaska 2004)(followed)
  • Lauth v. State, 12 P.3d 181, 184 (Alaska 2000)(followed)
  • Johns v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, 758 P.2d 1256, 1262-63 (Alaska 1988)(followed)
  • Younker v. Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, 598 P.2d 917, 920-21 (Alaska 1979)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Alaska Supreme Court