|
|
California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125 (1980)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125 (1980)
California v. Nevada No. 73, Orig. Argued April 14, 1980 Decided June 10, 1980 447 U.S. 125
ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER
Syllabus
Held:
1. The Special Master was fully justified in invoking the doctrine of acquiescence in concluding that the true boundary between California and Nevada is that located by two surveys, funded by congressional appropriations in 1872 and 1892, since both States have acquiesced in those boundary lines from the time they were drawn. The issue of whether Congress had power to determine the lines even though an 1863 joint survey had been commissioned by the States, which both adopted the results thereof by statute, need not be decided, since it is not necessary that there be a particular relationship between the origins of a boundary and the legal consequences of acquiescence in that boundary. Longstanding acquiescence by the States can give the boundary lines the force of law whether or not federal authorities had the power to draw them. Pp. 130-132.
2. However, the Special Master’s reference will not be expanded to authorize him to determine whether the United States should be made a party to the case and to make recommendations as to the quieting of title on various disputed borderlands. The ownership and title questions that remain typically will involve only one or the other State and the United States, or perhaps various citizens of those States, not disputes between the States. Thus, even if some of those questions do fall within this Court’s original jurisdiction, they will not fall within its exclusive jurisdiction, and litigation in other forums is an appropriate means of resolving those questions. Pp. 132-133.
Exceptions to Special Master’s report overruled, and report adopted in part.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125 (1980) in 447 U.S. 125 447 U.S. 126. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YHV69A6NPINBJSA.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125 (1980), in 447 U.S. 125, page 447 U.S. 126. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YHV69A6NPINBJSA.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125 (1980). cited in 1980, 447 U.S. 125, pp.447 U.S. 126. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YHV69A6NPINBJSA.
|