Alaska Psychiatric Institute

Abstract

Order, dated May 22, 2007, this Court requested supplemental briefing regarding the effect of State v. Native Village of Nunapitchuk, 1 on the pending request for full, reasonable attorney's fees, including whether appellant's counsel should be required to apportion his fees, as well as an accounting of the portion of full fees that is attributable to the successful constitutional claims. In addition to discussing whether Nunapitchuk applies to Appellate Rule 508(e), Ms. Wetherhorn asserts there are other, independent, constitutionally, based grounds for granting her motion for full reasonable attorneys fees, to wit: (1) her constitutional right 1 156 P.3d 389 (Alaska 2007) 4 156 P.3d at 404, footnote omitted. 5 See, e.g., 156 P.3d at 392. 6 At n. 11 of City of Kenai v. Friends of Recreation Ctr., 129 P.3d 452 (Alaska 2006), this Court indicated the legislative history "may inform the interpretation of the term 'appeal'" in Ch86/HB145, citing to testimony at the May 7, 2003, minutes of the House Judiciary Commmittee commenting on an April 21, 2003 letter from the Alaska Attorney General's office. This testimony and letter refer to HB 145 applying only to administrative appeals and lawsuits initiated in state court. However, HB 145 went through substantial change prior to enactment and it is difficult to see where the April 21, 2003, letter and May 7, 2003 testimony relate to the language of the bill, as enacted. 7 156 P.3d at 404-5.