A note about Alaska Packers v. Domenico

The Alaska Packers case is a reminder that what you read in an appellate court opinion (and especially an edited appellate court opinion) gives you only a small portion of the facts and background of a dispute. The circumstances of this case turn out to be much more complicated than it appears based on the court's recitation of the facts, and the complicated circumstances render the outcome of the case more questionable.

Professor Debora Threedy's article reveals a very nuanced story and provides a fascinating background. See Debora Threedy, A Fish Story: Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico, Utah Law Review: 2000 Utah Law Review 185 (2001). Based on her research, Professor Threedy presents some alternative stories to the one sketched out in the Ninth Circuit opinion.

She summarizes her alternative readings as follows:

First, a theory suggested by a reading of the trial transcript is explored: that the nets were indeed serviceable for fishing in Pyramid Harbor, but because the nets were unique to that fishery and because a large majority of the fishermen were both new to Alaska and not fluent in English, they mistakenly believed the nets were inadequate. Conversely, the possibility that the nets were indeed substandard is considered, along with an examination of why Alaska Packers had a motive to supply inadequate equipment. The assumption that Alaska Packers was at the mercy of the fishermen is challenged in the next section. Finally, changes in the labor market are examined as a source of the fishermen's dissatisfaction.

2000 Utah Law Review at 205.

Professor Threedy's article is available for download here: " A Fish Story"