Legal Opinion
Foster v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided March 11, 1988No. S-1846, S-1885PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
These cases involve competing claims of title to three parcels of land located near Haines, Alaska. The properties are on Porcupine Creek, an active gold-mining district in the early part of this century, subsequently abandoned, and now active again.
The State of Alaska, one of the claimants, bases its claim on its 1957 foreclosure pursuant to the Land Registration Law, ch. 134, SLA 1953 (codified as amended at AS 34.10.010-.240 (repealed 1978)). This act was designed in part to return abandoned land to the State.
Earle Foster, the second claimant, bases his claim on a provision in the…
3Cases cited29 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Zeman v. Lufthansa German AirlinesAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
- Keiner v. City of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1963
- Marley v. CannonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
- Kodiak Electric Ass'n v. Delaval Turbine, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1984
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by12 opinions
- Burke v. MakaAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, Inc. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
- Kollander v. KollanderAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
- Friends of Willow Lake, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Division of Aviation & AirportsAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
- Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Local Boundary CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.