Legal Opinion
McGlinchy v. State, Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided August 7, 2015No. S-15277PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STOWERS, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
M & M Constructors submitted a permit application to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to mine a mineral deposit for use as construction rock. DNR denied M & M's permit application because it concluded that the mineral deposit was common variety stone. Under the Common Varieties Act,1 "common varieties" of stone are not subject to "location," meaning they cannot be *1025permitted through the mining law's location process. M & M appealed to the superior court, arguing that DNR wrongly denied its permit application and also denied it procedural due…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Specht v. JensenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- United States v. Gloria Ann MoralesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
- United States v. ColemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Handley v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Teck American Incorporated and State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources v. Valhalla Mining, LLC, Teck American Incorporated and State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources v. Valhalla Mining, LLCAlaska Supreme Court · 2023
- Cooper Leasing, LLC v. The Woronzof Condominium Association, The Woronzof Condominium Association v. Cooper Leasing, LLCAlaska Supreme Court · 2024
- Guest v. Allstate InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2010
- Kasey Malay v. State of Alaska, Kasey Malay v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2026