Legal Opinion

Hillstrand v. City of Homer

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 2009No. S-13160PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WINFREE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

A municipality sought land through eminent domain to expand its water treatment plant. The property owner objected to the taking because: it would close off an access route to her remaining property; the municipality had not dedicated replacement access in a binding way; and the municipality sought a fee simple interest, rather than an easement, in the portion of the land to be used as an undeveloped protective buffer for the plant. The landowner also sought an order directing the municipality to obtain final plat approval for the property by a specific…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Moore v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1996
  3. City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Wolff v. Secretary of the South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks DepartmentSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Triangle, Inc. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Franke v. BoyleDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2024
  2. Luker v. SykesAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Lundgren v. CITY OF WASILLAAlaska Supreme Court · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API