Legal Opinion

State, Department of Natural Resources v. Greenpeace, Inc.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 2004No. S-10409PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Greenpeace, Inc. argues that the State of Alaska deprived Greenpeace of due process when the state lifted its stay of a temporary water use permit on one day’s notice. The public interest exception justifies our consideration of the due process issue although it is technically moot. We hold that although lifting the stay on one day’s notice denied Greenpeace a fair opportunity to be heard, its subsequent opportunity to litigate both the lifting of the stay and the permit’s merits cured this violation of due process. We therefore reverse the superior…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Heller v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. SchmidtAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Anchorage School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Ahtna Tene Nené v. State, Department of Fish & GameAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Mullins v. Local Boundary CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 2010

13 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