Legal Opinion

Tweedy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Board of Adjustment and Appeals

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 2014No. 6940 S-15034PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON REHEARING

STOWERS, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Clifton Tweedy began leasing property from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough on Big Lake in May 1988. The property included a house that was built in 1968 and located less than 18 feet from the lakeshore. When Tweedy assumed the lease, the existing structure was exempt from the Borough's 75-foot shoreline setback ordinance because it was constructed before any setback requirement existed. Shortly after he took possession of the property, Tweedy constructed a stairwell addition on the exterior of the house. In 2010 Tweedy applied with the Borough…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Phillips v. Washington Legal FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Peninsula Marketing Ass'n v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Balough v. Fairbanks North Star BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Heller v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  5. McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 2013

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In the Disciplinary Matter Involving IvyAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State, Office of Public Advocacy, Office of Elder Fraud & Assistance v. Estate of Jean R.Alaska Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Corkery v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2018
  4. In Re IvyAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
  5. State v. BeardNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API