Citation network
Arkansas Vs. Tennessee
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 1918
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
-
U.S. 158 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
U.S. 158 (1918) Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
at the middle of the main navigable channel, so that each state may enjoy an equal right of navigation. Iowa v. IllinoisSearch
-
replication, was brought on to hearing upon stipulated facts, pursuant to an intimation made by this Court in Cissna v. TennesseeSearch
-
The cut-off and the territory affected by it are the same that are mentioned and dealt with in the cases of Stockley v. CissnaSearch
-
F. 812, State v. PulpSearch
-
Co., 119 Tenn. 47, and Stockley v. CissnaSearch
-
line was affected by the avulsion to the extent indicated by the opinion of the Supreme Court of that state in State v. PulpSearch
-
the Union from another, much has been written. The subject was brought under the consideration of this Court in Iowa v. IllinoisSearch
-
Dunlieth & Dubuque Bridge Co. v. CountySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
has been treated as set at rest by that decision. Louisiana v. MississippiSearch
-
defendant state in the case at bar, including a reference to the notable recent decision of its Supreme Court in State v. PulpSearch
-
should be treated as settled. The reference is to certain judicial decisions and two acts of legislation. In Cessill v. StateSearch
-
This was followed in subsequent decisions by the same court. Wolfe v. StateSearch
-
Kinnanne v. StateSearch
-
Ark. 286, 290. The first pertinent decision by the Supreme Court of Tennessee is State v. PulpSearch
-
the river where the water still flowed in its ancient channel. The decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in State v. PulpSearch
-
therewith, which in some of the cases has been treated as an aid in setting the question at rest. Rhode Island v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Virginia v. TennesseeSearch
-
Louisiana v. MississippiSearch
-
Maryland v. WestSearch
-
although no water may be flowing in it, and irrespective of subsequent changes in the new channel. New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
Jefferis v. EastSearch
-
the contention runs counter to the settled rule, and is inconsistent with the declarations of this Court, in Nebraska v. IowaSearch
-
and, in Missouri v. NebraskaSearch
-
of the sea, the private right should be restored if the land is capable of identification. Such a case was Mulry v. NortonSearch
-
with respect to the navigable waters within their borders and the riparian lands adjacent to them. Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
St. Anthony Water Falls Power Co. v. WaterSearch
-
U. S. 242 . Thus, Arkansas may limit riparian ownership by the ordinary high water mark ( Railway v. RamseySearch
-
Wallace v. DriverSearch
-
streams to ordinary low water mark, and reserving as public the lands constituting the bed below that mark ( Elder v. BurrusSearch
-
Martin v. NanceSearch
-
Goodwin v. ThompsonSearch
-
to that which they have lost through gradual erosions in times preceding the avulsion, as she has done in State v. PulpSearch
-
press back the boundary line from where otherwise it should be located. It is hardly necessary to say that State v. PulpSearch
-
Co., supra, and Stockley v. CissnaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Arkansas v. TennesseeSearch
-
of Stockley v. CissnaSearch
-
State v. PulpSearch
-
and Stockley v. CissnaSearch
-
In Cessill v. StateSearch
-
Wolfe v. StateSearch
-
New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
Mulry v. NortonSearch
-
Railway v. RamseySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial