Citation network
United States Vs. Alaska
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1997
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
-
Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 1996 Syllabus United States V. AlaskaSearch
-
lands, beneath waters more than three miles from the mainland but not within three miles of an island. United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
lands under federal control for an appropriate public purpose. Under the strict standards of Utah Div. of State Lands v. UnitedSearch
-
navigation, fishing, and other public uses of water-is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Utah Div. of State Lands v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 482 U. S. 193 , 195 (1987). Under the doctrine of Lessee of Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
such action. Utah Div. of State Lands, supra, at 197. In United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
belt of the territorial sea, which would otherwise be held by the United States. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. T. 1606 (Convention). See United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
firm and continuing international policy of enclosing waters behind island fringes as inland waters. See United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
Report of Special Master in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
of nonmutual collateral estoppel is generally unavailable in litigation against the United States, see United States v. MendozaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
case, it could only preclude relitigation of issues of fact or law necessary to a court's judgment. Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
see Alaska Exh. 85-63 (Memorandum of United States in Response to Request of Special Master in United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
were inland waters. Brief for United States in Support of Motion for Judgment on Amended Complaint in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
islands were inland waters do not explicitly rely on a 10-mile rule. Moreover, in our decision in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
an average measure of high water over a 19-year period. Cf. United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Borax Consol., Ltd. v. LosSearch
-
features whose status under the Convention has never been determined. See Report of Special Master in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
we recognized that the Convention treats a nation's coastline as its modern, ambulatory coastline. See United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
conceded federal ownership of submerged lands within that boundary. In light of this Court's decision in Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
lands beneath certain coastal features within the Reserve's boundaries. Order of Special Master in United States v. AlaskaSearch
-
of submerged lands beneath inland navigable waters is pending in 33 Federal District Court, Alaska v. UnitedSearch
-
In Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
United States v. HoltSearch
-
United States v. TexasSearch
-
see also Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of a conveyance or reservation is a critical factor in determining federal intent. See also Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. UnitedSearch
-
land under the waters.''' Post, at 66 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Packer v. BirdSearch
-
under the Enclave Clause, it necessarily acquires title to the property. See James v. DravoSearch
-
see also Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
Mann v. TacomaSearch
-
intent to ratify the inclusion of submerged lands within the Reserve and to defeat the State's title to those lands. v. TheSearch
-
Gustafson v. AlloydSearch
-
Utah Div. of State Lands v. UnitedSearch
-
State Lands Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
retained by the United States is that set forth in the Act. Following in the wake of our decision in United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
see also United States v. MaineSearch
-
the States the rights to those lands thus conveyed to the States lands that this Court had found in United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Martin v. LesseeSearch
-
the words used in efforts to prevent passage of submerged lands to newly created States. For example, in United States v. HoltSearch
-
Section 5(a)'s standard is at the same time somewhat more generous to the United States. In Utah Div. of State Lands v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. AlaskaSearch
-
of Utah Div. of State Lands v. UnitedSearch
-
of Lessee of Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
In United States v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial