Pursche v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BOLGER, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
A Wasilla landowner appeals the tax fore-clogure against his property, arguing that the property is exempt from local property taxes because it was originally transferred to his predecessor by federal patent, He also claims that the federal patent takes this property beyond state court jurisdiction. But after a patent issues, property disputes must generally be resolved in state court. And land onee owned by the federal government is subject to local property taxes after it is conveyed to a private party. 'We therefore affirm the superior court's judgment…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of OneidaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Shulthis v. McDougalSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Ware v. HyltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1796
- Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Joy v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Arthur Hughes v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., et al.District Court, D. Alaska · 2026