State, Department of Natural Resources v. Pankratz

Alaska, STATE of DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES, NATURAL Cross-Appellant, Pankratz,

Fred PANKRATZ Helen Cross-Appellee. Pankratz,

Fred PANKRATZ and Helen Appellants, Alaska,

STATE of DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES, Appellee. NATURAL

Nos.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 1, 1975. Whiting, Bixler Whiting

H. & Asso- ciates, Fairbanks, for appellants and cross- appellee.

Stanley Fischer, Gen., Atty. T. An- Asst. chorage, Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Norman C. Juneau, appellee cross-appellant. for OPINION RABINOWITZ, Before J.,C. CONNOR BOOCHEVER, DIMOND, JJ., and J. Pro Tern. CONNOR, Justice.

This legal case raises ques- and factual concerning tions of accretion in Alaska. Fred and Helen Pankratz have brought appeal an seeking costs and attor- ney’s fees following quiet-title a judgment rendered in their superior favor court. State of Alaska cross-ap- pealed, claiming that trial court erred finding property, on located Fairbanks, Chena River near has accreted legal to appellants. benefit of I.

In appellants purchased parcel a of land on the banks of the Chena River. An island, which is now known as “Pike’s Is- land”, river, lies in the of middle front the property which the Pankratzes acquired In Lloyd Mr. Pike obtained title to the through patent island a from the government; hence the name, Pike’s May 7, 1969, Island. On acquired Fred Pankratz Pike’s Island from Lloyd Pike. August of 1967 the Chena River ex-

perienced an unusually severe flood. Fol- lowing flood, that aerial photographs re- vealed that the southeast channel of the river, which is located Pank- between the parcel Island, ratzes’ mainland and Pike’s all, was flowing very either not or was shallow. Ocotober

On the State Alas- ka, through Lands, its Division entered gravel bailing into the first of two con- contract title to the bar Pankratz. This in the quieted tracts with Fred State’s name. gravel counterclaimed, Pankratz to bail The Pankratzes of sale authorized asking that River, quieted title be bed of the in their names from the southeast Chena upstream yet Pike’s the State be slightly from Island. ordered to third issue gravel expired August on to contract sale contract them. first April By April 29, Pankratz had under- case tried operations superior court, bailing jury. taken substantial without On Oc- It Pike’s Island area the Chena River. tober the court issued memoran- begin- awarding dum apparent bar decision to bar title river, directly ning from the Pankratzes. All emerge other claims coun- or upstream of Pike’s contiguous end terclaims have either been settled or were This constitutes the dis- Island. denied. From that decision Pankratzes puted property appealed, claiming in this lawsuit. have costs and attor- ney’s cross-appealed, fees. The State 8, 1969, the Pankratz and On October claiming that in the court erred quieting ti- bailing a gravel into second State entered tle to the bar in favor of the Pankratzes. agreement called for Pank- contract. This fifty long “re- along appeal ratz two foot On we are to bail confronted with three gravel the side the zones” on far cross-appeal moval claims of error. its the argues bar. that the court erred in State find- ing gravel that the bar emerged had above 1970, Pankratz By early summer of the high-water mean the annual mark of the stockpiled quantity of bailed large had a argues Chena River. It further that the continuing to gravel on the bar which was judge finding erred that the Pankratzes upstream emerge of Pike’s along the end not cause gravel did the bar accretion to expired on Island. The second contract Pankratzes, appeal, occur. The their July 1970. argue Judge that Gilbert’s to award failure 19, 1970, the State Beginning on June attorney’s them, costs and fees to without demanding that re- to he wrote Pankratz explanation, constitutes error under the stockpiled gravel from the move the party” “prevailing doctrine of Alaska Civil bar, to which the State claimed emerging 82(a).1 Rule July on own. Similar demands made Pankratz August and 1970. II. gravel. the A letter dated did not remove by errors Both claimed the suggested that law- November question related to the of wheth State are if not imminent the matter was suit was support there was sufficient evidence to er quickly. resolved findings Gilbert’s Judge high-water had accreted above mean 21, 1971, May filed four-

On Pankratzes had not mark and against and count lawsuit Fred Helen own caused that accretion their conduct. complaint sought, inter Pankratz. The will alia, Before reverse the trial court’s restore the we to have the Pankratzes judge-tried cases, findings in we must have their tres- southeast river channel end and firm pass a definite conviction that error bar, to have the bailed on gravel bar, to have committed.2 removed from 82(a) perti- provides shall a fee commensurate Alaska Civil Rule court award legal part: net with the amount and value of services Prevailing Party “(a) as rendered.” Allowance Costs. Airlines, Inc., See, g., e. Fiche v. Alaska (Alaska 1974); Alaska 624 P.2d (2) money judgment In actions where the Foods, Mu- Inc. American Manufacturer’s determining Co., (Alas- an accurate criteria for tual Insurance 482 P.2d side, prevailing fee be allowed to the ka Supreme explained it is useful to review At the outset United States navigable in cases as this. that the states claim title to the the law of accretion such involving Normally, private litigation within their borders under the river beds land, law, law, doctrine,4 “equal-footing” than federal state rather so-called which However, quit- provides Congress rules.3 in effect codified when it substantive controversy present in the Fred Pankratz claimed federal interests to such lands Pike’s Island back to in Bonelli that traced his title to 1953.5 But the court held patent granted equal-footing a federal which neither the doctrine nor Submerged Lloyd permitted Pike in 1965. In Borax Consolidat Lands Act of 1953 ed, application City Angeles, Ltd. v. Los of state in a controver- (1935), sy private 80 L.Ed. between a and the landowner Supreme Court held: title navi- state over to accreted land on a gable stream. question

“The as to the extent of this is, grant, “ordinary federal as to the limit meaning high-wa- necessarily conveyed, the land ... ter under federal law is mark” somewhat question. . . . in- boundary federal unclear. While such a line can [I]t the ascertainment of the essential eye volves often be traced without right basis asserted under federal difficulty,6 phrase a definition of added) (emphasis dispute law.” useful when a bona fide arises. Texas, Oklahoma applying This rationale for 625-40, 221, involving patents (1923), in 43 S.Ct. 67 L.Ed. 428 law cases federal Supreme high-wa- the held that Hughes first used in an in Court the accretion case 290, ter mark is coterminous lim- Washington, 290-92, v. with the outer 389 U.S. 88 S. 438, it of the “bed” of the The (1967). Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d 530 In Bonel- river. Arizona, 313, li Cattle defined the bed of Co. v. 94 the river as land which 414 U.S. S.Ct.'517, “kept practically by vegetation 38 bare of (1973), L.Ed.2d 526 federal applied law to an the wash of the waters of the river from accretion case involv course, ing navigable present year, a year case to their onward al- river. though parts dry concerns a claim of accretion to an island of it are left for months Texas, granted by patent navigable a a time . . . on a at .” Oklahoma supra 632, stream. that 43 at In United We therefore conclude feder S.Ct. 225. law, 87, law, Claridge, F.Supp. (D. al rather than state States v. 279 91 controls the presented affd, 933, C.Ariz.1967), (9th substantive issues 416 F.2d herein. 934 cert, 961, denied, 1969), Cir. 397 90 U.S. agree Both sides that the State has title 994, (1970), 25 L.Ed.2d 253 the court S.Ct. rivers, navigable to the bed its of such as stated: River, up ordinary high- the Chena to the mark, ordinary high by water as modified “The water mark of a riv- accretion. Arizona, physical supra, Bonelli the er is a characteristic Cattle Co. v. natural Weschsler, navigable passed 3. H. M. Hart & H. The Federal beneath from the waters System (2nd States, upon Courts and the Federal Federal to the new 776-77 Government 1973). Union, the the ed. their admission to under equal-footing (footnotes doctrine.” omit- original the colonies ratified the Con- “When Arizona, ted) Bonelli Cattle Co. v. 414 they stitution, to the Crown’s succeeded 313, 317-18, 517, (1973). 522 U.S. 94 S.Ct. navigable title and interest beds of respective their borders. . As waters within Arizona, Bonelli 414 See Cattle Co. U.S. forged new States were out of the federal 517, (1973) ; S.Ct. 38 526 94 L.Ed.2d Union, territories after the formation Submerged 1953, Lands Act of 43 U.S.C. § they rights, were ‘admitted the same [with] seq. et 1301 sovereignty jurisdiction as the ... original respec- possess Texas, 6. Oklahoma v. 43 States within their 260 U.S. (1923). Accordingly, tive borders.’ title to lands L.Ed. 428 S.Ct. 67

989 recognizes of by of “federal law doctrine upon the lands the action placed whereby ‘grantee placed there, as land It accretion of the river. by ordinary body navigable of of implies, from the flow bounded water name peak . . acquires right any gradual extend to . and does not the river stage along to include so as accretion formed the shore.’ flow or flood plain, gradual it impercepti- nor is there is a on the flood When overflow stages the river navigable to the lowest of ble land on a confined accumulation of riverbank, omitted) way (footnote of alluvion or relic- flow.” tion, riparian owner is the benefi- and method of ascer relevance ciary title surfaced mark was taining high-water (citations land . . omitted) . .” Ford explained Borough definitively Fred Pankratz and Helen claim be States, 345 F.2d 648-51 City v. United of such cert, beneficiaries accretion the form denied, (3rd 1965), 382 U.S. Cir. emerged along the gravel bar which has 15 156 (1965). L.Ed.2d upstream end Pike’s Island. demarca court noted that the that case the along navigable streams tion of boundaries It is that well established the bur readily The court observable. generally proving den of accretion with the rests high-water explain on to went party claiming the benefit thereof. Okla observing usually can be detected mark Texas, homa v. multiple factors, including presence (1923). L.Ed. 428 Alaska state shelving, change the character of Schnabel, is in P. accord. Schafer litter, soil, and the destruc the absence of (Alaska 2d vegetation. tion of terrestrial When It is likewise settled that accretion multiple comprising high-water factors causes, provided artificial may result from location, isit in one mark cannot found party claiming the benefit did for them at other sites permissible to check the artificial accumulation. himself cause along the stream. Arizona, Bonelli Cattle Co. v. be multiple phenomena 327, 517, cannot 526 (1973); If these 94 38 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 933, “vegetation found, to the so-called Claridge, resort v. 416 F.2d United States these is appropriate.’7' (9th 1969). Under Alaska state law test” alone Cir. 935 Schnabel, high-water mark rests at v. 494 again circumstances the in accord. Schafer of the soil point 802, 1972). the value (Alaska below which 807 P.2d has been agricultural purposes for that all III. not mean

destroyed.8 This does mark,9 but vegetation absent below mind, legal principles in we these With will vegetation that terrestrial rather a of the record in this now turn to review grow there.10 case. Arizona, trial, At as an ex- U. Pankratzes called v. 414 Bonelli Cattle Co. pro- Rogers, R. 517, 526, pert witness Mr. Leslie L.Ed.2d 38 94 S.Ct. S. presented surveyor. Rogers fessional Mr. Supreme stated: (1973), 526 States, Chicago, City B. R. Borough But v. é Q. United see United States Ford 7. See of cert, cert, (7th 1937), Co., 161, (3rd 1965), 645, de- F.2d 170 Cir. 90 F.2d 648 Cir. 345 33, denied, nied, 82 L.Ed. 302 58 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. 86 15 382 U.S. (1937). (1965). 551 156 City States, Borough How.) (13 Ingersoll, Ford United 10. See 54 See Howard U.S. cert, (3rd 1965), ; Borough (1851) de- Cir. 345 F.2d 648 14 L.Ed. 189 nied, States, L.Ed. City 15 86 S.Ct. F.2d Ford v. United 345 cert, (1965). 1965), denied, (3rd 2d 156 U.S. Cir. (1965). 236, 15 L.Ed.2d diagram purported also called which to establish State Dr. Charles Behlke, ordinary high-water hydraulics. mark in the vi- who a doctorate in mean has testimony indi- Behlke’s cinity diagram of Pike’s Island. The Doctor centered on aer- photographs gravel ial of Pike’s Island and cer- cates that the bar the head Geological Survey Pike’s tain records which Island above mark. U.S. revealed the rate at which River the Chena Rogers testified about the manner Mr. passed measuring flowed when it station which the chart had been constructed. He upstream a few miles from Pike’s Island. states that he had selected four sites on Apparently testimony in- Dr. Behlke’s far bank of the Chena River.11 Two of approximate establish an tended to location Island, the sites were above Pike’s two mark, high-water of the mean to within spot, were below the In each sub- island. foot above one or below its actual location. vegetation present. stantial terrestrial readings He then at each of took elevation However, Dr. Behlke admitted that the locations, readings these and these Geological Survey could not records plotted diagram. Connecting then on the to determine used where actual lines were and the was sub- drawn chart particular place mark in a on the river was mitted into evidence as indicative of the lo- And located. he further admitted that at ordinary high-water cation of the mean Pike’s Island the level of the Chena River Rogers mark. Mr. testified that the would be affected “backwater” from bar had accreted above the mean River, Tanana into which the Chena flows high-water mark. Judge a few miles downstream. Gilbert objection sustained an to Dr. Behlke’s argues The State the evidence opinion high-water as to the level presented by the Pankratzes is insufficient Island, mark at grounds Pike’s on the support finding the backwater from the Tanana an created high-water had accreted above the mean unexplained variable which rendered the regard appears In this mark. State opinion useless. rely testimony witnesses, on the of two plus evidentiary presumption an may which Additionally, the State relies on involving be relevant cases the location presumption created us in Hawkins ordinary high-water marks. Freight Lines, v. Alaska 410 P.2d (Alaska Hawkins, called Mr. Enzo Becia as an we held that expert photographic interpretation. actions, party, by where his Mr. one own imposed “vegetation” Becia lines on rendered high-water aerial determination of the photographs disputed territory. “impracticable,” straight-line ap Al- mark though might proximation these lines reflect an eleva- called the “meander line” will ordinary tional high-wa- presumed variance from the to be the mark.12 The State ter mark constructed Rogers chart, on Mr. contends that because Pankratz obliterated perceptual Mr. Becia’s high-water abilities were se- the around Pike’s Island and verely impeached bar, on gravel cross-examination. the contested the Pankratzes’ Apparently, activity (1895) ; Shively Bowlby, human in and around 40 L.Ed. v. 68 152 gravel 39, 1, 548, (1894) ; the bar led him to believe that he could 14 U.S. S.Ct. 38 L.E'd. 331 survey by selecting Wasoberg, F.Supp. 1006, take rectly better sites not di- Nordale v. 84 disputed property. (D.Alaska 1949). However, on the 12 Alaska 399 presumption the announced the Hawkins 12. Federal clearly opinion procedural rule, adopted establishes that the is a to facili- normally hard-to-prove “meander line” does not constitute tate the establishment of a fact. high See, g., reason, presumption available, the water mark. e. Niles v. For this the Club, Cedar Point 175 U.S. 20 even a case controlled federal substan- (1899) ; S.Ct. 44 L.Ed. 171 Some v. tive law. Smith, 40, 42-43, 159 mark, proof presumption high-water Pankratzes, must the cre the overcome or their agents, ated in case. the Hawkins caused the accretion to occur. Therefore, the Pankratzes cannot ti- claim the does Our review of record not con- property tle to the under the doc- accretion appellants vince us that the rendered a de- But, above, trine. as mentioned it is set- high-water of the mark im- termination tled that may accretion result artifi- from practicable. photos The State introduced causes, provided cial party that the claim- stripping of a the on bulldozer overburden ing the benefit did not cause the artificial Island, Pike’s and drew admissions from Bonelli Arizo- accumulation. Cattle Co. v. Horner, agent, George Pankratz and his na, 38 L. they stripped vegetation that had from (1973); Ed.2d 526 United States Clar- Pike’s Island. But at no time did the State 1969); idge, 416 (9th F.2d Cir. any proving that Pank- introduce evidence Schnabel, 494 P.2d the Schafer ratz’s conduct made determination of (Alaska 1972). imprac- high-water mark on the prove To the ticable. that Pankratzes caused the occur, attempt- accretion to the first State presumption op Even the if were ed to itself did show 1967 flood erative, the State still has failed to offer change high- not level the proof showing sufficient to overcome the water The relied on the testi- mark. State the In which Pankratzes made trial. mony Becia, attempted Enzo who Mr. Leibold, Rollins v. 512 P.2d 943-44 proposition by drawing “veg- establish this (Alaska 1973), following the we stated photographs etation on aerial taken lines” presumptions: regard with to the effect of However, the as before after flood. presumption is established “[0]nce earlier, testimony was noted Mr. Becia’s party opposing has the burden impeached by perceptual showing that his pre- proving that nonexistence of the particularly were Even skills reliable. probable fact than its ex- sumed is more wholly credi- testimony if Mr. Becia’s istence.” ble, the Pank- it would not establish that State, Cooksey 524 P.2d accretion, but ratzes’ conduct caused the added, 1974), n.16 (Alaska we simply did not cause the flood buildup. adoption “The rule in cases tried merits jury the court without a as well as question causation, the State On by jury. any event, those tried testimony tending to show that points presumption can once established be dis- the area before the Pankratzes had bailed evidence; pelled by contrary the trier signed first on October contract with rule must resolve issue points

fact also to evidence 1968. The State added) as a simply guide.” (emphasis contract, showing that under the first place, clearly wrong bailed in Pankratz proof of The Pankratzes offered direct impair as to stockpiled so expert high-water mark testi- through channel, and bailed in the southeast flow mony. seriously failed im- expired, but before after the first contract peach testimony, and offered no credi- signed. second contract was conflicting ble evidence of its own. of this all The Pankratzes countered trial evi- judge found that the Pankratzes’ witnesses, whom most of numerous with persuasive according- and ruled dence was in any interest not shown have ly. the record shows noth- Our review of First, They testified to two facts. case. ing approaching error in that even clear larger “grown” in recent the'bar had not ruling. Second, channel memory. the southeast during only filled argues grav The that if the dry State and usually was happen el has still flooding, accreted above could which after began Thus, dredging. Pankratz presented on the State dozens of and tes- exhibits activity, causal effect of Pankratz’s the ev- timony amounting to about half the entire conflicting. Judge idence is hold transcript We during its par- case in A chief. did not error in ty Gilbert commit clear find- should not be assessed costs and fees ing merely that the Pankratzes did not cause arti- because the evidence offered was persuasive. ficial accretion.13 however, Finally, the Pankratzes IV. judge claim that the trial abused his dis judg- in Since find no clear error we cretion failing any to state reason for quiet gravel bar in the ment to title to the Cooper his denial of the claim. In v. Carl favor, decide Pankratzes’ we must whether son, (Alaska 1973), 511 P.2d 1305 we dis refusing in to award them the court erred precise There, cussed plain this issue. attorney’s costs and fees. tiff, lessor, taking sued his lessee for pre from leased doubt that the Pankratzes land. The lessee There no vailed generally De but was denied and prevailing parties. are the See Witt costs Co., explanation. appealed fees P.2d 600-01 without He Liberty Leasing case, and Buza Columbia Lumber we remanded the since we could (Alaska 1972); Co., (Alaska 1964). not determine whether the trial court had P.2d They thought appel main in the denied the claim because it succeeded on the issue lawsuit, ownership prevailing party simply lant was not the which was the or as an exercise of its Pike’s Island discretion. bar. ' present judge the trial case found Pankratzes rest their “abuse The prevailed “prin- that the Pankratzes on the separate of discretion” claim on four asser cipal Nevertheless, issue” at bar. he held First, they that the suit filed tions. claim party each bear own costs should its litigation. There State was reckless fees, attorney’s explain and and he did not nothing support this assertion. why ruling his general deviated from the Second, they claim State attorney’s rule that costs and fees are nor- the counts as the “abandoned” most of mally prevailing party.14 awarded to complaint trial The progressed. Carlson, Cooper supra, Under we will quiet the bar seeking four counts title to Gilbert, Judge sitting remand case to Pank- name and to have the State’s pro tempore, purpose for of determin- bar, end ratzes from the remove the ing attorney’s and fees whether costs trespass bar, their on the unblock the discretion, should be denied in his in which validity of the last southeast channel. The exercising event the dis- for such reasons points largely quiet-ti hinged three on the cretion should set forth. perhaps prudent It trial tle action. aspects strategy quiet-title on the to focus judgment re- below is affirmed with of the case. proper- to the gard to the Pankratzes’ title question ty. The case is remanded on the argument The third on which attorney’s awarding fees to costs rely presented Pankratzes is that appellants. “very support its little evidence” simply This is not the part, part. case. claim. remanded Affirmed pages However, 13. The State devotes about four of its since the State behest. State’s cross-appeal issue brief to the contention that clear error on the failed to establish materially point causation, Pankratzes breached the second this is moot. bailing Apparently, contract. this section designed supra. to demonstrate that the Pankratzes footnote 1 R.Civ.P. See alleged artificial alterations were not at

993 FITZGERALD, JJ., not vided in section two ERWIN and that state law should govern disposition of participating. the land: It is determined and declared to inbe WITZ, Justice, with RABIN O Chief public the interest that (1) to or title DIMOND, (concur- Justice, joins whom ownership the of lands beneath navigable ring). waters within the boundaries re- of in the affirmance the I concur While States, spective the and natural resources title to superior judgment quieting court’s waters, within lands such and (2) and River favor the Chena power manage,' the right and to adminis- Pankratzes, with agree I cannot ter, lease, develop, and use the said lands law that federal must majority’s conclusion and in accordance natural resources all applied. be, applicable they with State law federal law majority The concludes that are, hereof, subject provisions to the rec- controlling it in the case at bar because ognized, confirmed, established, and vest- “a an island claim of accretion to involves assigned respective ed in and to navigable patent granted by federal on ,3. States . . of a I the extent agree stream.” merely Submerged Lands Act of 1953 question patent under a federal grant pre-existing confirmed State’s common law, here amount of of federal but rights law navigable the beds of the wa- patent conveyed to by the 1965federal land terways within their boundaries.4 These Lloyd simply Pike is not in issue. There recognized rights common law in Ar- patent. dispute no about the terms of Tennessee, 158, kansas 246 U.S. 38 S.Ct. According majority’s position, to feder- 301, (1918), 62 638 where the L.Ed. United any supplant law al law would state Court, body Supreme citing large States dispute property there is a federal where repeated precedent, a result patent in the chain title. Such constitutionally nor is neither desirable it doctrine that is for familiar compelled. such States to establish for themselves possible applying The other for rationale they expedient property as deem rules of Submerged law Lands federal is that navigable respect to the waters with 1953, seq., et Act of 43 1301 U.S.C. § riparian and the within their borders applicable which was Alaska at made to lands to adjacent them.5 statehood,1 the extent of controls recently doc- reaffirmed this The Court rivers, navigable title State’s the bed of Arizona, 414 Cattle Co. v. trine in Bonelli Act such as the con- Chena River. 517, 526 313, 94 38 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. firmed that Alaska had to land be- title (1973): navigable neath nontidal waters. principle to the to adhere We continue up high to the mark as water determine is left the States it heretofore or hereafter modified ac riparian in the beds owners rights cretion, erosion, . . . reliction .2 which, under feder- navigable streams Once Alaska had obtained title to the land law, belong to Act, al the State.6 pro- in the described the Act itself 428, 812, 808, Pub.L.No.85-508, 6(m) (July 7, L.Ed. 35 1. 11 S.Ct. § (1891). 433 1301(a)(1) (1964). § 43 U.S.C. 319, 523, L.Ed. at 38 6.414 94 S.Ct. U.S. 1311(a) (1964) (emphasis 3. 43 U.S.C. add- § 2d at 535. ed). Arizona, U.S. 414 In Bonelli Cattle Co. Arizona, Bonelli Cattle Go. 414 See U.S. (1973), 526 L.Ed.2d 38 94 S.Ct. 38 L.Ed.2d Washington, Hughes v. U.S. and in (1973). (1967), 19 L.Ed.2d reversing applied deci 5. 246 U.S. at 38 S.Ct. at 62 L.Ed. involving prop supreme Jordan, See courts at 648. also Hardin v. sions of state Thus, this I am of the view court in apply Alaska law here determin-

should owners, riparian rights

ing the

Pankratzes. law, I find no evi-

Looking to Alaska riparian

dence that in Alaska an owner land be- may acquire

land title to accreted ordinary high mark.7 water

low

Therefore, agreement with the ma- I am parties, that the

jority, and the up River

title to the bed of the Chena ordinary high mark as modified water this Alaska law on accretion. Since law, in ab-

point as same federal precedent regarding deter- of Alaska

sence mark, ordinary high water

mination persuasive. highly

federal case law

MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH al., Appellants, et

v. Lum, Helen

W. Burton LUM and Appellees. Lum, LUM Helen

W. Burton Cross-Appellants,

v.

MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH al., Cross-Appellees. et

Nos.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 8, 1975. (Stewart, erty rights riparian By invoking (1973) land. L.Ed.2d law, application J., dissenting). of federal federal the Court was able to exercise jurisdiction Note, by granting certiorari; if state criticized Bonelli Co. is Cattle law supreme controlling, (1975). law were held the state 50 Wash.L.Rev. 777 court decisions would not have been reviewable Schnabel, they inde 494 P.2d because would have rested on See Schafer grounds. 1972) (holding pendent, adequate (Alaska bene- that accretion state law See long Corp. riparian Muller, land so Fox Film owner of coastal 296 U.S. fits the tide, high (1935). Thus, mean accreted land above 80 L.Ed. 158 as the conveyed boundary may land into seabed have introduced Submerged Act Lands “erroneous” under these cases order to correct Alaska court Bonelli Cattle Co. state decisions. See Arizona,

Case Details

Case Name: State, Department of Natural Resources v. Pankratz

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 1, 1975

Citation: 538 P.2d 984

Docket Number: 2153, 2156

Court Abbreviation: Alaska