Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hughes Vs. Washington

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 11, 1967

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

35 entries 3 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Jones Vs. Johnston US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1855
    Distinguished
  2. County of St. Clair Vs. Lovingston US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  3. Shively Vs. Bowlby US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1894
  4. U.S. 290 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Hughes v. Washington
    Search
  5. U.S. 290 (1967) Hughes v. Washington
    Search
  6. Court before, we think the path to decision Page 389 U. S. 292 is indicated by our holding in Borax, Ltd. v. Los
    Search
  7. No subsequent case in this Court has cast doubt on the principle announced in Borax. See also United States v. Oregon
    Search
  8. definition of the shoreline or on a particularized problem relating to the ownership of accretion. See United States v. Washington
    Search
  9. of distinguishing Borax, respondent urges us to reconsider it. Borax itself, as well as United States v. Oregon
    Search
  10. by a body of navigable water acquires a right to any natural and gradual accretion formed along the shore. In Jones v. Johnston
    Search
  11. How. at 59 U. S. 156 . The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this rule, County of St. Clair v. Lovingston
    Search
  12. Jefferis v. East
    Search
  13. rights at the mercy of natural phenomena which may in no way affect the interests of the tideland owner. See Stevens v. Arnold
    Search
  14. In Ker & Co. v. Couden
    Search
  15. deprive a riparian owner of his common law right to utilize the flowing water, St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. Water
    Search
  16. Comm'rs, 168 U. S. 349 (1897), or to build a wharf over the water, Shively v. Bowlby
    Search
  17. the State may fill its tidelands, and thus block the riparian owner's natural access to the water. Port of Seattle v. Oregon
    Search
  18. the federal origin of her title, that the State not take her land without just compensation. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  19. change in state law thus inevitably presents a federal question for the determination of this Court. See Demorest v. City
    Search
  20. Bank Co., 321 U. S. 36 , 321 U. S. 42 -43. Cf. Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand
    Search
  21. What is at issue here is the accuracy of that characterization. The state court rested its result upon Eisenbach v. Hatfield
    Search
  22. court declined to resolve the accretions question presented here. This question was resolved in 1946, in Ghione v. State
    Search
  23. U.S. Supreme Court Hughes v. Washington
    Search
  24. Borax, Ltd. v. Los
    Search
  25. See United States v. Washington
    Search
  26. In Jones v. Johnston
    Search
  27. See Stevens v. Arnold
    Search
  28. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. Water
    Search
  29. Port of Seattle v. Oregon
    Search
  30. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  31. Court. See Demorest v. City
    Search
  32. Anderson v. Brand
    Search
  33. Eisenbach v. Hatfield
    Search
  34. Ghione v. State
    Search
  35. United States v. Oregon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales