Legal Opinion

Paul v. Nauska

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1964No. 455PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AREND, Justice.

The principal question presented on the appeal in this case is whether the superior court was correct in holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide a supplemental issue growing out of a decision rendered by the Court of Claims of the United States in favor of the Stikine Tribal Community of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska.

The appellant, William L. Paul, Sr., appeared as plaintiff below for himself individually and as a member of the class of Alaska Indians mentioned. In his complaint he asked the superior court to require the defendants, who are named as appellees in…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Second Employers'liability CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. CourtneySupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Garrett v. Moore-Mccormack Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1912

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Law Offices of Vincent Vitale, P.C. v. TabbytiteAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Paul v. NauskaAlaska Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Law Offices of Vincent Vitale, P.C. v. TabbytiteAlaska Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API