LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

GILBERTSON v SHIVELY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 3AN-99-03477 CI., CourtCode: SU, CourtName: Superior Court, District: Third, JudgeName: Sigurd Murphy, Plaintiff: GILBERTSON, State: AK Alaska, UniqueCaseRef: AK>SU>3AN-99-03477CI, Aac, Alaska, Gilbertson, Certification, Commissioner, Tracts Road, Natural Resources, Reconsideration, Land, Respondent, Regulations, Review, Cantwell, Petitioner, Petition, Superior Court, Northern Regional Office, Certifying Cantwell, Interpretation, Alaska Constitution, Administrative Procedure Act, Enactment, Anchorage, Nomination, Regulatory Action, Legal Question, Reasonable Basis, Agency Expertise, Respondent Argues , ContentID: 120239511

Case Documents
1 2000-01-14 THE CLINIC WAS NEGLIGENT/RECKLESS IN HIRING/RETAINING HOFFMANN; AND 3) THAT THE CLINICS DECISION TO TERMINATE GARRIS BREACHED AN IMPLIED EMPLOYMENT COAT ANCHORAGE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100013
10 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . THE CLINIC WAS NEGLIGENT/RECKLESS IN HIRING/RETAINING HOFFMANN; AND 3) THAT THE CLINICS DECISION TO TERMINATE GARRIS BREACHED AN IMPLIED EMPLOYMENT COAT ANCHORAGE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ALASKA
GILBERTSON
CERTIFICATION
COMMISSIONER
TRACTS ROAD
COURT
NATURAL RESOURCES
RECONSIDERATION
LAND
RESPONDENT
REGULATIONS
REVIEW
CANTWELL
PETITIONER
PETITION
SUPERIOR COURT
NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE
CERTIFYING CANTWELL
INTERPRETATION
ALASKA CONSTITUTION
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
ENACTMENT
ANCHORAGE
NOMINATION
REGULATORY ACTION
LEGAL QUESTION
REASONABLE BASIS
AGENCY EXPERTISE
RESPONDENT ARGUES

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

AT ANCHORAGE

ROBERT R. GILBERTSON, Petitioner,

v.JOHN SHIVELY, in his official capacity

as Commissioner of the Department of

Natural Resources, State of Alaska, Respondent.

Case No. 3AN-99-03477 CI.

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This petition for review concerns the September 14, 1999 decision on reconsideration entered by
l Resources, as subsequently clarified on September 30, 1999, which remanded the identification and
25, as an RS 2477 right of way, to the Northern Regional Office of the Division of Mining, Land and
99. The issue now before this court is whether the Department of Natural Resources (Department)
poses of identifying and certifying Cantwell Small Tracts Road, RST-625 as an RS 2477 right-of-way.
AAC 51 were not followed by the Department, this court finds that the Department violated Article I
 Mr. Gilbertson of due process of law. The Commissioner and Department must comply with 11 AAC 51
fication of RST-625 as an RS 2477 right-of-way.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 5, 1994, Dominic Canale and Ruth Colianni (hereinafter collectively "Mr. Canale")
ell Small Tracts Road for certification as an RS 2477 right-of-way. [Fn. 1] Upon receiving Mr.
SNIPPETS:
  • Natural Resources, State of Alaska, Respondent.
  • This petition for review concerns the September 14, 1999 decision on reconsideration entered
  • The petition was granted on November 29,
  • The issue now before this court is whether the Department of Natural Resources must comply
  • Because the notice and comment requirements of 11 AAC 51 were not followed by the Department,
  • The Commissioner and Department must comply with 11 AAC 51 concerning the nomination,
  • including aerial photos and land surveys regarding the disputed roadway.
  • I have studied the statutes and regulations, and it appears to me that you have not allowed
  • The Division of Land contents that the enactment of AS 19.30.400 has rendered 11 AAC 51.010
  • The Petitioner claims that the Commissioner concluded that Mr. Gilbertson did not contest the
  • The Respondent claims that the Commissioner rightly found that Mr. Gilbertson had never
  • The Commissioner remanded the matter to Northern Regional Office of the Division of Mining,
  • On October 7, 1999, Mr. Gilbertson petitioned the Superior Court for review of the decision
  • These are the "substantial evidence" test for questions of fact; the "reasonable basis" test
  • The question of whether the Department must comply with regulations it has adopted for the
  • And finally, if the answers to the above questions is no, then did the failure of the
  • The Respondent argues that 11 AAC 51 was intended as a formal nomination, identification and
  • the Department's refusal to follow 11 AAC 51 with respect to certification of RS 2477 routes
  • DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 14th day of February, 2000.
  •    |