boundaries claim in Alaska

5 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2015 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Welcome v. Jenningsgreen alaska · 1989 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1999–2015 2 sentences 2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi 2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi	2	2
Gold Dust Mines, Inc. v. Little Squaw Gold Mining Co.green alaska · 2012 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi	1	1
Shope v. Simsgreen alaska · 1983 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi	1	1
Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. State, Department of Natural Resourcesgreen alaska · 2000 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015The court relies on the functional irrevocability tests adopted in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. State, Department of Natural Resources; in that case we concluded a statutory best interest finding was required because the permit at issue was functionally irrevocable. 2 P.3d 629, 637-39 (Alaska 2000).	1	1
Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Peckgreen alaska · 1974 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007NOTES [1] Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. Peck, 520 P.2d 87, 92 (Alaska 1974); see also Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Schwartz, 915 P.2d 632, 635 (Alaska 1996). [2] French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 32 (Alaska 1996); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 558 (1977). [3] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 564 cmt. a (1977). [4] The dissent argues that since MacDonald was answering a question regarding how she had sustained her injuries, it is only possible to infer that she told Scanlan how she sustained her injuries.	1	1
French v. Jadon, Inc.green alaska · 1996 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007NOTES [1] Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. Peck, 520 P.2d 87, 92 (Alaska 1974); see also Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Schwartz, 915 P.2d 632, 635 (Alaska 1996). [2] French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 32 (Alaska 1996); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 558 (1977). [3] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 564 cmt. a (1977). [4] The dissent argues that since MacDonald was answering a question regarding how she had sustained her injuries, it is only possible to infer that she told Scanlan how she sustained her injuries. 2007French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 32 (Alaska 1996) ("For a publication to be defamatory per se, the words used must be so unambiguous as to be reasonably susceptible of only one interpretation ....") (internal quotations and citations omitted). .	1	1
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Schwartzgreen alaska · 1996 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007NOTES [1] Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. Peck, 520 P.2d 87, 92 (Alaska 1974); see also Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Schwartz, 915 P.2d 632, 635 (Alaska 1996). [2] French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 32 (Alaska 1996); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 558 (1977). [3] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 564 cmt. a (1977). [4] The dissent argues that since MacDonald was answering a question regarding how she had sustained her injuries, it is only possible to infer that she told Scanlan how she sustained her injuries.	1	1
Anchorage v. Sandberggreen alaska · 1993 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals subject to AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 lying within the boundaries of the claim.”); Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (noting that "[a] person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location and recording”). 15 .See Anchorage v. Sandberg, 861 P.2d 554, 557 (Alaska 1993) (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014-19 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)). 16 .	1	1
S. L. W. v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Boardgreen alaska · 1971 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976 2 sentences 1976See S.L.W. v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board, Alaska, 490 P.2d 42, 45, 46 (1971). 1976See S.L.W. v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board, Alaska, 490 P.2d 42, 45, 46 (1971).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Beluga Mining Co. v. State, Department of Natural Resources green alaska · 1999 1 sentence 2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi	1	2015–2015
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 1999The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals subject to AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 lying within the boundaries of the claim.”); Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (noting that "[a] person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location and recording”). 15 .See Anchorage v. Sandberg, 861 P.2d 554, 557 (Alaska 1993) (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014-19 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)). 16 . 1999The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals subject to AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 lying within the boundaries of the claim.”); Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (noting that "[a] person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location and recording”). 15 .See Anchorage v. Sandberg, 861 P.2d 554, 557 (Alaska 1993) (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014-19 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)). 16 .	1	1999–1999
Reynolds v. State green alaskactapp · 1985 1 sentence 1987In Reynolds v. State, 706 P.2d 708 (Alaska App.1985), we clarified the “inherent relationship” requirement of the cognate approach: [W]e think it self-evident that the boundaries of the requirement must be circumscribed by the constitutional rule of merger and can extend no farther.	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

TX 22 (1909–2021) CA 20 (1902–2024) NJ 14 (1963–2026) KS 9 (1984–2022) MD 9 (1990–2023) MS 8 (2005–2019) OR 6 (1894–2006) UT 6 (1912–2006) WA 6 (1909–2016) PA 6 (1988–2024) MT 6 (1895–2015) ID 6 (1945–2010) AZ 5 (1919–2019) IL 5 (1980–2007) AK 5 (1976–2015) CO 4 (1891–1943) ND 4 (2006–2021) IN 4 (1991–2015) VA 4 (1854–1987) MI 3 (1993–2015) DC 3 (1979–2016) NM 3 (1939–2023) SC 3 (2013–2023) NY 2 (1944–1999) MO 2 (1974–1979) NH 2 (1989–2015) OH 2 (2017–2020) FL 2 (2005–2023) MN 2 (1993–2016) NV 2 (1931–1983)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check