Alaska Supreme Court· 2/10/1984
State v. F/V BARANOF
Citations
- 677 P.2d 1245
- 1984 Alas. LEXIS 261
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- since owners were afforded due process, need not address constitutionality of statute
- since owners were afforded due process, need not address constitutionality of statute
- since owners were afforded due process, need not address constitutionality of statute
- not addressing constitutional issue because of disposition of first point on appeal
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Burke, Rabinow-Itz, Matthews, Compton, Moore
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Gilmore v. Alaska Workers' Compensation BoardAlaska Supreme Court· 1994-10-14· cited 32×
- Alaska Trademark Shellfish, LLC v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 2004-04-16· cited 18×
- Waiste v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 2000-10-13· cited 13×
- Crawford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 2004-10-22· cited 9×
- Tulkisarmute Native Community Council v. HeinzeAlaska Supreme Court· 1995-07-28· cited 7×
- Alaska State Council of Carpenters v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 1281Alaska Supreme Court· 1986-11-07· cited 5×
- Fehir v. StateAlaska Supreme Court· 1988-05-20· cited 3×
- State v. DupierCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 2003-08-01· cited 1×
- State v. PainterCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-02-22
Cites
41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court· 1983-06-24· cited 5,652×
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court· 1983-06-24· cited 3,550×
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court· 1965-04-26· cited 3,144×
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court· 1936-11-09· cited 2,167×
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court· 1908-11-16· cited 1,832×
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court· 1974-06-17· cited 1,276×
- United States v. MenascheSupreme Court· 1955-04-04· cited 1,032×
- City of Philadelphia v. New JerseySupreme Court· 1978-06-23· cited 899×
- Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Supreme Court· 1978-03-06· cited 588×
- Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.Supreme Court· 1981-07-01· cited 563×
- Healy v. RattaSupreme Court· 1934-04-30· cited 510×
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.Supreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 506×
- Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1947-04-07· cited 334×
- Skiriotes v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1941-05-26· cited 243×
- Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co.Supreme Court· 1933-03-13· cited 236×
- Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del. for New Castle Cty.Supreme Court· 1961-05-29· cited 231×
- Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., County of San DiegoSupreme Court· 1954-01-18· cited 228×
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court· 1912-02-19· cited 208×
- Starin v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1885-11-02· cited 169×
- Richard Stypmann v. The City and County of San FranciscoNinth Circuit· 1977-07-21· cited 142×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.