Legal Opinion
Waynor v. Diboff
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided September 25, 1937No. 4081-APublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ALEXANDER, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on motion of Ivan Diboff and Maude R. Diboff to strike certain parts of the complaint, on the ground that they are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, sham and frivolous.
All of the parts of the complaint covered by specifications 1, 2, and 3 refers to the claim of plaintiff on accretions formed to the lands claimed by him as grantee under United States Survey Number 375, as described in the complaint.
“ ‘Accretion’ is increase of real estate by gradual deposit by water of solid material, so as to create dry land of that previously…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Nebraska v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- County of St. Clair v. LovingstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Handly's Lessee v. AnthonySupreme Court of the United States · 1820
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schafer v. SchnabelAlaska Supreme Court · 1972