Legal Opinion

Pursche v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 2016No. 7091 S-15824PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of OneidaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Shulthis v. McDougalSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. Ware v. HyltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1796
  4. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. 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

  1. Arthur Hughes v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., et al.District Court, D. Alaska · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API