Legal Opinion
Chocknok v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided March 15, 1985No. S-222PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
The primary issue raised in these consolidated appeals is whether the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (Commission) applied improper standards in determining that appellants were not partners in fishing ventures with their husbands and therefore were not entitled to income dependence points under 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2). These points, if awarded, would be sufficient to entitle each appellant to receive a limited entry permit for the Bristol Bay drift gill net fishery. We conclude that the Commission determined the partnership questions presented by these cases under…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Merle D. Vincent, Jr., Regional Director of the Third Region of the National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Rose v. Commercial Fisheries Entry CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
- State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. TempletonAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Northern Lights Motel, Inc. v. SweaneyAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General v. Consumer Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Kuzmin v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry CommissionAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
- Recreational Data Services, Inc. v. Trimble Navigation LimitedAlaska Supreme Court · 2017
- Crivello v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- May v. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Services DivisionAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.