Citation network
Bonelli Cattle Co. Vs. Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 17, 1973
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
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 313 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Bonelli Cattle Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. 313 (1973) Bonelli Cattle Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Weber v. BoardSearch
-
their title to the bed of a navigable river mechanically follows the river's gradual changes in course. See Oklahoma v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
whether petitioner, as a riparian owner, had any interest in the land thereafter. As the Court said in Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
River or whether that title is defeasible by the withdrawal of those waters. As this Court observed in Borax, Ltd. v. LosSearch
-
Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
supra, and the cases cited therein are not to the contrary. In Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
a matter determined by federal law. 246 U.S. at 246 U. S. 176 . Similarly, in Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
Id. at 152 U. S. 43 . In Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
waters to riparian owners after recognizing that, under federal law such lands belong to the States. See also Scott v. LattigSearch
-
claim to the disputed land. Historically, title to the beds beneath navigable waters is held by the sovereign, Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
U. S. 371 , 140 U. S. 381 (1891). See United States v. KansasSearch
-
and is part and parcel of the ownership of the land itself. Hughes v. WashingtonSearch
-
of accretion applies to changes in the river course due to artificial as well as natural causes. County of St. Clair v. LovingstonSearch
-
United States v. ClaridgeSearch
-
former river stream remains at that line, even if the result is to cut off a landowner's riparian rights. St. Louis v. RutzSearch
-
were the accretion principle to be applied. As this Court, quoting from 8 Op.Atty.Gen. 175, observed in Nebraska v. IowaSearch
-
doctrine should provide a disposition of the land as between the riparian owner and the State. See Michaelson v. SilverSearch
-
New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
a question which we find unnecessary to decide on our view of the case. As MR. JUSTICE STEWART warned in Hughes v. WashingtonSearch
-
Paul Water Comm'rs, 168 U. S. 349 (1897), or to build a wharf over the water, Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
the owner of the riparian character of his property in the exercise of its navigational servitude. United States v. RandsSearch
-
that depriving Bonelli of the subject land is necessary to any navigational or related purpose. Cf. United States v. RiverSearch
-
Colberg, Inc. v. StateSearch
-
but the State's attempt to completely divest all of Bonelli's title and interest in the subject land. See Yates v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
The Colorado River has been determined to be a navigable waterway, Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 423 (1931), and, once found to be navigable, it remains so. United States v. AppalachianSearch
-
as amicus curiae, assert that this case should be governed by federal law for a different reason. In Hughes v. WashingtonSearch
-
State v. GillSearch
-
The Supreme Court of Arizona relied on this Court's decisions in Goodtitle v. KibbeSearch
-
How. 471 (1850), and Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
of the navigational purpose limitation on the State's interest in the lands beneath its waterways, see United States v. RiverSearch
-
Michaelson v. SilverSearch
-
of the State's interests should not be narrowly construed, because it is denominated a navigational purpose. See Zabel v. TabbSearch
-
In contrast, this Court's decision in Marine R. & Coal Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. HeckerSearch
-
U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 1395-1640. Congress was concerned about this Court's decision in United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
E.g., Nebraska v. IowaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial