Quote:
Originally Posted by MSYoung  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is in California where no one knows what -65 degrees means. That is probably why she appealed it here. If she had appealed it in Alaska they would probably have thrown her in a snow bank. |
She can't sue in an Alaska state court because the U.S. can only be sued in U.S. Distrcit Courts (probably the one in Alaska). She had no choice on where to appeal, because Alaska is part of the 9th circuit and the court of appeals for that circuit is located in California. I suspect the Army will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this one on appeal from the circuit court, but they don't have to hear the case.
I can understand the side of the Army contesting it's a municipality, and I would agree with them in the "working" parts of the base. In the housing side of the base, it really does act more as a landlord and provides landlord type services to the houses/dormitories through their civil engineering unit (plumbing, painting, repairs, sometimes lawncare, etc). I can understand the court's interpretation of defining "landlord" vs. "municipality". What I don't get is the Alaskan law requiring landlords to keep common areas clear. Surely the Alaskans who wrote this law understand -65. Perhaps they meant to require them to keep the areas "passable." Surely this came out of some complaint on an apartment complex manager who let giant snow banks pile up in the parking lots and breezeways and was never intenmded to make them de-ice every sq. inch of the property.
All that being said, I still think the woman's a dumb-ass.