CWC Fisheries, Inc. v. Bunker
Alaska Supreme Court
755 P.2d 1115 (1988)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Shortly after Alaska became a state, the Alaskan legislature enacted the Alaska Land Act which, in relevant part, granted tideland occupants who had made substantial improvements to their land preferential rights to obtain title to the tideland from the state. Snug Harbor Packing Company (SHPC) obtained preferential title to a plot of tidelands in the Tuxedni Channel, called ATS 360, under the Alaska Lands Act. SHPC used the ATS 360 site as the location of its fish cannery. Dean Bunker (defendant), a commercial salmon fisherman, operated salmon set-nets in the ATS 360 portion of the Tuxedni Channel for almost 20 years. Subsequently, CWC Fisheries, Inc. (CWC) (plaintiff) purchased SHPC’s operation and title to ATS 360 and sought to control access to the ATS 360 fishery. CWC sued Bunker for trespass, arguing that the ATS 360 site was conveyed without reservation of public-trust access rights to the tidelands because (1) Alaska Land Act tideland grants were made to promote the public interest; and (2) ATS 360 was an isolated tidelands conveyance, and removing it from the public-trust would not substantially impair the public’s interest in the remaining public-trust lands and waterways. Bunker countered, arguing that Alaska’s conveyance of ATS 360 was made subject to an easement preserving the public-trust right of tidelands access. The trial court granted summary judgment to Bunker, holding CWC’s title to ATS 360 was subject to the public-trust and, therefore, CWC could not deny Bunker fishing access. CWC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

