Baker v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rozak

    48 P.3d 474 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002)

    The meaning of subsection (f) This court addressed the meaning of 5 AAC 39.107(f) in Baker v. State, 878 P.2d 642 (Alaska App. 1994). In Baker, we declared that subsection (f) "appears to strengthen, not relax, the requirement of the permit-holder's presence".

  2. Baxley v. State

    958 P.2d 422 (Alaska 1998)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the uniform application clause was not violated "[b]ecause no other entity [was] similarly situated"

    In recognition of the importance of citizens' equal access to natural resources, we interpret the Uniform Application Clause to require legislation dealing with natural resources to satisfy a heightened level of equal protection scrutiny. Gilbert v. State, 803 P.2d 391, 398 (Alaska 1990); Baker v. State, 878 P.2d 642, 644 (Alaska App. 1994). The protections of the Uniform Application Clause, however, extend only to persons similarly situated with respect to the subject matter and purpose of the legislation.