Hayes v. A.J. Associates, Inc.

SHORTELL, J. pro tem,

concurring in the result.

RABINOWITZ, Justice, joining in Part A of Justice Shortell’s concurring opinion.

Because I disagree with the conclusion that AS 38.05.130 does not cover Hayes’s acts establishing the boundaries of his claims, I write separately on that issue. However, I agree with Justice Eastaugh’s alternátive conclusion that summary ejectment or invalidation of Hayes’s claims'would be an inappropriate remedy in this case. Thus, although I disagree with one aspect of Justice Eastaugh’s opinion, I agree that the judgment granting ejectment should be reversed.1

A.…