Madison v. Alaska Department of Fish & Game

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that agency regulation was invalid because it unduly restricted subsistence hunting, contrary to legislative intent
• holding that the Board's criteria for Tier H users that were based on proximity to the resource were inconsistent with the first subsistence statute
• concluding board's regulation interpreting words \customary and traditional\ was inconsistent with legislative intent behind Alaska's 1978 subsistence law
• holding Board of Fisheries regulations defining subsistence fisheries inconsistent with AS 16.05.940(22), (23), and 16.-05.251(b), which define “subsistence fishing” and “subsistence uses,” and require the Board to adopt regulations permitting subsistence fishing
• preamble to subsistence law establishes intent that subsistence rights exist within sustained yield management plan
• preamble to subsistence law establishes intent that subsistence rights exist within sustained yield management plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).