Legal Opinion

Payton v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1997No. S-7557PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FABE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Tom and Diane Payton seek to have a subsistence fishery created in the upper Yentna River area. The Board of Fisheries (Board) denied the Paytons’ repeated proposals for such a fishery, and the Paytons appealed to the superior court. The superior court granted summary judgment against the Paytons, concluding that (1) the Board correctly interpreted statutory and regulatory provisions relating to subsistence and (2) there was ample evidentiary support for the Board’s finding that current uses of salmon in the upper Yentna River area were not sufficiently…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rose v. Commercial Fisheries Entry CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
  2. McDowell v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Nielson v. BentonAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Madison v. Alaska Department of Fish & GameAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. MacRiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Native Village of Elim v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. SchmidtAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
  3. O'CALLAGHAN v. RueAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Jerrel v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State, Department of Natural Resources v. Greenpeace, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2004

4 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