Haggren v. State
Alaska Court of Appeals
829 P.2d 842 (1992)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
J. Michael Haggren (defendant) was operating a drift gill net about 250 feet away from a shore fishery lease belonging to Frank Canady. Canady asked that Haggren move his drift net because it was too close to where Canady was going to place his set gill net. However, Haggren had called the Division of Alaska State Troopers for clarification as to who had the right-of-way given that the required distance between set netters and drift netters was 600 feet. The state-trooper dispatcher conferred with Fish & Wildlife Patrol Officer Titus, who said that the first net in the water had the right of way. Based on this information, Haggren refused to move his drift net upon Canady’s request. Haggren was charged with the strict-liability violation of operating a commercial drift gill net within 600 feet of a set gill net. Haggren appealed, arguing that his offense should be excused based on his reliance on Officer Titus’s interpretation of the law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mannheimer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
