Citation network
New Jersey Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 12, 1998
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
-
New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
York - 523 U.S. 767 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus New Jersey V. NewSearch
-
that New Jersey has retained ultimate sovereign rights over submerged lands on its side, Central R. Co. of N. J. v. JerseySearch
-
which has no effect on boundary, Nebraska v. IowaSearch
-
an affirmative defense, New York has a plaintiff's burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence, Illi nois v. KentuckySearch
-
Court, that the lowwater mark is the most appropriate boundary between sovereigns, see, e. g., Handly's Lessee v. AnthonySearch
-
Unless the compact is unconstitutional, no court may order relief inconsistent with its express terms. Texas v. NewSearch
-
west of the midpoint of the waters of the Hudson River and New York Bay. N. J. Exh. 293 (Complaint filed in New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
by New Jersey. Id., at 22-23. Although we took jurisdiction over the suit, New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
We have already addressed the meaning of some of these terms in Central R. Co. of N. J. v. JerseySearch
-
prompted to bring the instant action after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Collins v. PromarkSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Districts Council as Amici Curiae 17-27. Although we left this very issue open in Central R. Co. of N J. v. JerseySearch
-
over the harbor concerns only power to regulate commerce and navigation. See Kowalskie v. MerchantsSearch
-
Prerog. 1943). While we are not bound by state courts' resolution of interstate boundary disputes, Georgia v. SouthSearch
-
consequences were sufficiently clear under the common law as it was understood in 1834.6 In this case, as in Georgia v. SouthSearch
-
Ibid. (citing Seacoast Real Estate Co. v. AmericanSearch
-
see also United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
citing Marine Railway & Coal Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Blackstone, 143 U. S., at 364 (citing 2 Commentaries on the Laws of England 262 (1766)). See also Mayor of New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
the islands through prescriptive acts. New Jersey conceded as much when it filed its bill of complaint in New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
assumption that Article Second or some other Compact provision fails to carry the day for New York, the State Co. v. AmericanSearch
-
A. 489, 490 (1920). New York's amicus curiae the City of New York suggests that under United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the course of a substantial period, during which the latter has acquiesced in the impositions upon it. See Illinois v. KentuckySearch
-
Georgia v. SouthSearch
-
Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
Vermont v. NewSearch
-
Louisiana v. MississippiSearch
-
Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
portions of the Island, as well as New Jersey's acquiescence in those acts of possession and jurisdiction. Illinois v. KentuckySearch
-
visible, and uninterrupted adverse acts that New Jersey's knowledge and acquiescence may be presumed. See Georgia v. SouthSearch
-
not of the adverse holding only, but of the title under which the possession is held''') (quoting Landes v. BrantSearch
-
Michigan v. WisconsinSearch
-
at 456457. We have, however, found 60 years adequate in one case, see Michigan v. WisconsinSearch
-
Rettig v. JohnSearch
-
any requisite occupation by New York as a matter of law (and we express no opinion on that point, cf. Georgia v. SouthSearch
-
this case. New York, for example, has been in no position to establish towns, roads, or public buildings, see Michigan v. WisconsinSearch
-
Maryland v. WestSearch
-
Virginia, 217 U. S. 1 , 40 (1910), or otherwise actually occupy the area of the Island in dispute, see Georgia v. SouthSearch
-
generate the kind of evidence of prescription that we have found particularly persuasive in prior cases. See Illinois v. KentuckySearch
-
Syllabus New Jersey V. NewSearch
-
Central R. Co. of N. J. v. JerseySearch
-
Texas v. NewSearch
-
Collins v. PromarkSearch
-
See Kowalskie v. MerchantsSearch
-
Seacoast Real Estate Co. v. AmericanSearch
-
United States v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial