Yute Air Alaska v. McAlpine
Alaska Supreme Court
698 P.2d 1173 (1985)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
A group including Stephen McAlpine (McAlpine) (defendants) desired to place a ballot initiative on Alaska’s November 1984 election ballot that would have repealed all existing Alaska statutes regulating motor and air carriers to open those industries and prohibit cities from regulating the activities of those industries. The initiative would also have required Alaska’s governor to seek repeal of the federal Jones Act, which required use of American vessels for the shipping of goods between American ports. A group including Yute Air Alaska, Inc. (Yute) (plaintiffs) did not wish for repeal of these existing laws and filed suit seeking to keep the initiative off the ballot. Yute raised two basic arguments against the initiative: (1) the initiative violated Alaska’s single-subject rule for initiative topics, and (2) the requirement regarding the governor’s conduct was not enacting or amending law but directing administrative duties. McAlpine noted that prior Alaska cases had construed the single-subject limitation very broadly, such that virtually any general heading under which multiple items might fit would allow simultaneous consideration of those topics in a single initiative. The trial court ruled for McAlpine that the proposed initiative was valid. Yute appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Burke, J.)
Dissent (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.