Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when no action was alleged after the approval of a plat, no continuing violation occurred merely because the plat was allegedly wrongfully approved and recorded
• holding that when no action was alleged after the approval of a plat, no continuing violation occurred merely because the plat was allegedly wrongfully approved and recorded
• reversing the dismissal of a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, noting that the plaintiffs “are not entitled to money damages for the alleged violations of their constitutional rights, but they may seek declaratory and injunctive relief”
• “[T]he procedural procedural unavailability of alternative remedies does not negate the existence of those remedies.”
• “The Krauses also make an argument regarding whether the superior court could have properly found that the alleged constitutional violations were not flagrant. Because the availability of an alternative remedy disposes of the damages claims, we need not consider that issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).