Legal Opinion
State, Department of Natural Resources v. Pankratz
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided August 1, 1975No. 2153, 2156PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR and BOOCHEVER, JJ., and DIMOND, J. Pro Tern. CONNOR, Justice.
This case raises legal and factual questions concerning the law of accretion in Alaska. Fred and Helen Pankratz have brought an appeal seeking costs and attorney’s fees following a quiet-title judgment rendered in their favor by the superior court. The State of Alaska has cross-appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in finding that the property, located on the Chena River near Fairbanks, has accreted to the legal benefit of appellants.
I
In 1961 appellants purchased a parcel of land on…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Cooksey v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Hughes v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Bonelli Cattle Co. v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- City of Anchorage v. ScaveniusAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon)California Supreme Court · 1981
- State, Department of Natural Resources v. Alaska Riverways, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2010
- South Dakota Wildlife Federation v. Water Management BoardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
- Boekeloo v. KuschinskiMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.