Legal Opinion

Jerrel v. State, Department of Natural Resources

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 2000No. S-8436PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FABE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

State regulations require that holders of state grazing leases mark their livestock. When neighbors complained about the horses on Dan and Viola Jerrel’s grazing leases, the Department of Natural Resources terminated the leases on the ground that the Jerrels had failed to brand their horses. Yet neithpr Alaska statutes nor relevant regulations require that horses be marked with a brand so that these marks may be .visible at twenty feet. Because DNR’s ad hoc interpretation of the livestock marking requirement is a regulation that was not adopted in…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Kelly v. ZamarelloAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Earth Resources Co. of Alaska v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Municipality of Anchorage v. SchneiderAlaska Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. HammondAlaska Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Alaska Center for the Environment v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Smart v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Alaska Center for the Environment v. RueAlaska Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Friends of Willow Lake, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Division of Aviation & AirportsAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Burke v. Houston Nana, L.L.C.Alaska Supreme Court · 2010

14 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