Travis Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Travis Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

487 P.3d 595
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedJune 11, 2021
DocketS17309, S17519
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 487 P.3d 595 (Travis Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Travis Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Travis Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Travis Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, 487 P.3d 595 (Ala. 2021).

Opinion

In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska

TRAVIS BUNTIN, ) ) Supreme Court Nos. S-17309/17519 Plaintiff, ) ) U.S. District Court No. 3:16-CV- v. ) 00073 (TMB) ) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY ) ORDER CORPORATION, ) Withdraw and Reissue Opinion ) Defendant. ) June 11, 2021 )

Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Carney, and Borghesan, Justices

Having considered Travis Buntin’s Petition for Rehearing and Schlumberger Technology Corporation’s response, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED IN PART but otherwise DENIED, and: 1. Opinion No. 7521 issued on April 23, 2021, is WITHDRAWN. 2. Opinion No. 7535 is issued on June 11, 2021, in its place, revising footnote 82 as follows: One question left open in today’s decision is whether, in addition to being precluded from giving exemptions a narrow reading, Alaska courts are required to apply general federal rules of statutory interpretation methodologies in lieu of our “sliding scale approach,” see Mat-Su Valley Med. Ctr., LLC v. Bolinder, 427 P.3d 754, 763 (Alaska 2018), when deciding cases involving AWHA exemptions explicitly linked to federal interpretation, as white collar exemptions are. The parties did not brief or argue this issue, and we do not decide it today. We note, as some scholars have pointed out, that it is not entirely clear what the federal rules of statutory Case Nos. S-17309/17519 Order Reissuing Opinion June 11, 2021 Page 2

interpretation methodologies are, and, where they exist, or how binding they are. See Abbe R. Gluck, Intersystemic Statutory Interpretation: Methodology as “Law” and the Erie Doctrine, 120 YALE L. J. 1898, 1909-11 (2011) (noting that federal rules of statutory interpretation, with some notable exceptions, are largely unresolved). Entered by direction of the court. Clerk of the Appellate Courts

/s/ ________________________ Meredith Montgomery cc: Supreme Court Justices

Distribution:

Daniel Pace Aaron D. Sperbeck Pace Law Offices Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot 101 E. Ninth, #7A 510 “L” Street, #700 Anchorage, AK 99501 Anchorage, AK 99501

Timothy W. Seaver Martin J. Regimbal Seaver & Wagner, LLC Jennifer D. Sims 500 “L” Street, #501 The Kullman Firm, P.L.C. Anchorage, AK 99501 119 Third Street S., #2 Columbus MS 39701 Kenneth Legacki Kenneth W. Legacki, PC Samuel Zurik, III 2207 Spenard Road, #209 Robert P. Lombardi Anchorage, AK 99501 Bryan Edward Bowdler The Kullman Firm, P.L.C. William J. Evans 1100 Poydras Street, #1600 Sedor Wendlandt Evans & Filippi, LLC New Orleans, LA 70163 500 “L” Street, #500 Anchorage, AK 99501

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brett Talmadge v. State of Alaska
Court of Appeals of Alaska, 2025
Martin C. Smith v. State of Alaska
549 P.3d 145 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 2024)
Yvonne Ito v. Copper River Native Association
547 P.3d 1003 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2024)
Copeland v. Houser
D. Alaska, 2023
Blythe P. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS
524 P.3d 238 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2023)
Chitwood v. Bacon
D. Alaska, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 P.3d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travis-buntin-v-schlumberger-technology-corporation-travis-buntin-v-alaska-2021.