Court Opinion

ID: 9554049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:40:36.808142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:53.615317
License: Public Domain

*638RABINO WITZ, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that “Ehrlander has shown no facts which would give rise to DOT’s liability for the borough platting board’s partial denial of the subdivision,” and that the exhaustion doctrine articulated in Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 761 P.2d 119, 121-22 (Alaska 1988) does not bar Ehrlander from pressing an inverse condemnation claim against the state regarding that portion of his land designated as “Section B” in the appendix. I believe Ben Lomond is dispositive, however, of Ehrlander’s claim to a temporary taking of “Section A.” No article I § 18 inquiry whatsoever regarding this parcel would now be necessary had Ehrlander successfully appealed (in whole or in relevant part) the Board’s October 1983 partial denial. See Ben Lomond, 761 P.2d at 122.