State, Department of Natural Resources v. Alaska Riverways, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that commercial user of public waterway “failed to establish a violation of its equal protection rights” because among other things it had not shown that the State treated it differently than other users
• observing that Wernberg \did not specifically address the scope and limitations\ of any riparian right except the right of access
• explaining that § 5(b), “like the Commerce and Tonnage Clauses, prohibits levying fees on the use of navigable waters unless those fees do not impose a significant burden on interstate commerce”
• indicating that state has “police power to regulate for the common good”
• discussing article VIII, section 6 and “public domain”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).