Legal Opinion

Moore v. State, Department of Natural Resources

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1999No. S-8624PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CARPENETI, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Pacific Rainier, Inc. (PRI) located and recorded mining claims on state-selected federal land. At the time, the federal government had not conveyed the land. Upon determining that PRI was not qualified to do business in Alaska, and thus not allowed to acquire mining rights in this state, the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources voided PRI’s claims. The superior court upheld the commissioner’s decision. The presi dent of PRI, Monty D. Moore, appealed to this court, arguing that a locator on stateT selected federal lands does not acquire…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Handley v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Wyoming v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Peninsula Marketing Ass'n v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Payne v. New MexicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1921

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Evans v. McTaggartAlaska Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Oels v. Anchorage Police Department Employees Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Osterkamp v. StilesAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Gold Dust Mines, Inc. v. Little Squaw Gold Mining Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Alaskans for Efficient Government, Inc. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API