Legal Opinion

Cannone v. Noey

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1994No. S-5669PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC” or “State”) petitioned for review of a ruling by the superior court that an administrative decision, subsequently overturned as arbitrary, per se establishes a temporary taking. The superior court held that under the Alaska and United States Constitutions, a temporary taking had occurred, and therefore the property owners were entitled to just compensation. We reverse.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Stephen Noey, Helen Noey, and Pac-Rim Financial Services, a partnership (collectively referred to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Balough v. Fairbanks North Star BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Beluga Mining Co. v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
  4. R & Y, INC. v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Clay County Ex Rel. County Commission of Clay v. Harley & Susie Bogue, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1999

9 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