6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities v. Alaska Laser Wash, Inc.green2 sentences2019Alaska Laser Wash arose from an inverse condemnation claim by a car wash owner; in that case, we decided that the “feasibility, rather than reasonableness,” of relocating a business “is the correct standard for analyzing whether a business owner may recover business-loss damages when the State condemns the business owner’s property.” Id. 2019Alaska Laser Wash arose from an inverse condemnation claim by a car wash owner; in that case, we decided that the "feasibility, rather than reasonableness," of relocating a business "is the correct standard for analyzing whether a business owner may recover business-loss damages when the State condemns the business owner's property." Id. | 1 | 2 |
Resource Investments v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilitiesgreen1 sentence2020Facilities, 687 P.2d 280, 285 (Alaska 1984). 18 34 P.3d 289, 290 (Alaska 2001). -5- 7449 In R & Y we held that “when a landowner does not prevail on an inverse condemnation claim” the landowner loses the protection of Rule 72.19 We then remanded for an award of “prevailing party” attorney’s fees under Rule 82.20 Because the landowners in R & Y were unable to establish that there had been a taking, the Municipality was the prevailing party.21 As the prevailing party, the Municipality was entitled to fees under Rule 82 after successfully defending itself against the inverse condemnation claim.22 | 1 | 1 |
R & Y, INC. v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen2 sentences2020Facilities, 687 P.2d 280, 285 (Alaska 1984). 18 34 P.3d 289, 290 (Alaska 2001). -5- 7449 In R & Y we held that “when a landowner does not prevail on an inverse condemnation claim” the landowner loses the protection of Rule 72.19 We then remanded for an award of “prevailing party” attorney’s fees under Rule 82.20 Because the landowners in R & Y were unable to establish that there had been a taking, the Municipality was the prevailing party.21 As the prevailing party, the Municipality was entitled to fees under Rule 82 after successfully defending itself against the inverse condemnation claim.22 2020We recently cited R & Y in City of Kenai v. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC.24 In that case we denied Rule 72 protection for the City’s unsuccessful cross-claim against a third eminent domain respondent.25 We clarified that Rule 72 creates an exception to “the general applicability of Rule 82” only for “cases involving 19 Id. 20 Id. at 301 ; see Alaska R. | 1 | 1 |
Bakke v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See 744 P.2d at 656 (addressing an inverse condemnation claim arising from a landowning couple's complaint that a state logging operation caused a landslide years later, resulting in damage to their property). 15 . 2016Id. 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen2 sentences1990I agree that "Ehrlander has shown no facts which would give rise to DOT's liability for the borough platting board's partial denial of the subdivision," and that the exhaustion doctrine articulated in Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 761 P.2d 119, 121-22 (Alaska 1988) does not bar Ehrlander from pressing an inverse condemnation claim against the state regarding that portion of his land designated as "Section B" in the appendix. 1990I agree that “Ehrlander has shown no facts which would give rise to DOT’s liability for the borough platting board’s partial denial of the subdivision,” and that the exhaustion doctrine articulated in Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 761 P.2d 119, 121-22 (Alaska 1988) does not bar Ehrlander from pressing an inverse condemnation claim against the state regarding that portion of his land designated as “Section B” in the appendix. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lange v. State
green
2 sentences2002Because the landowners do not urge us to apply Klopping in this case, it is not necessary to decide here whether Alaska would recognize a Klopping claim. 26 . 86 Wash.2d 585 , 547 P.2d 282 (1976). 27 . 2002Because the landowners do not urge us to apply Klopping in this case, it is not necessary to decide here whether Alaska would recognize a Klopping claim. 26 . 86 Wash.2d 585 , 547 P.2d 282 (1976). 27 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
City of Kenai v. Burnett
green
1 sentence1995Under AS 09.25.050, a seven year period applies when the adverse possessor acquires possession “under color and claim of title.” Burnett, 860 P.2d at 1240 n. 13 (emphasis added). 10 According to Lakeview, Nesbett supports the proposition that an inverse condemnation claim can only be barred if the government proves that it adversely possessed the complainant’s property. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.