Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Oregon

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 01, 1935

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

68 entries 7 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Scott Vs. Lattig US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1913
  2. United States Vs. Utah US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1931
  3. Allen Vs. Hanks US Supreme Court · May 19, 1890
  4. HardIn Vs. Jordan US Supreme Court · May 11, 1891
    Relied / Followed
  5. Van Wyck Vs. Knevals US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1882
  6. Gridley Vs. Wynant US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1859
  7. Sharon Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1892
  8. U.S. 1 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Oregon
    Search
  9. U.S. 1 (1935) United States v. Oregon
    Search
  10. to statehood. If the waters were navigable in fact, title passed to the State upon her admission to the Union. Shively v. Bowlby
    Search
  11. Oklahoma v. Texas
    Search
  12. U. S. 574 , 258 U. S. 583 , 258 U. S. 591 . United States v. Utah
    Search
  13. statutory grant to the State of school and indemnity lands in the act admitting Oregon to statehood. See United States v. Morrison
    Search
  14. S. 192 . The state contends Page 295 U. S. 7 that the common law rule, applied by this Court in Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  15. granted lands upon the meander line fronting on the easterly side of Mud Lake, a distance of 72.31 chains. See Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  16. July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, we conclude that the master's determination was correct. See United States v. Midwest
    Search
  17. to any interest in the adjacent land within the meander line. This was done because he thought the rule of Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  18. States to patentees of lands bordering upon the meander line boundary were comparable to those involved in Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  19. As they are not parties, their rights cannot be affected by any decree to be entered in the present suit. Priest v. Las
    Search
  20. either (2) under the doctrine of Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  21. by the sovereign of the lands to be held in private ownership or transfer of sovereignty itself. See Massachusetts v. New
    Search
  22. of the United States to land underlying them remains unaffected by the creation of the new State. See United States v. Utah
    Search
  23. in the present case, the waters are not capable of use for navigation in interstate or foreign commerce. United States v. Holt
    Search
  24. Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United
    Search
  25. finding embodies the appropriate tests of navigability as laid down by the decisions of this Court. See United States v. Holt
    Search
  26. Economy Light & Power Co. v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Rio
    Search
  28. exceptions, the trappers appear Page 295 U. S. 21 to have waded or walked. See Toledo Liberal Shooting Co. v. Erie
    Search
  29. general and common usefulness for purposes of trade and commerce which is essential to navigability. See United States v. Rio
    Search
  30. or ponds large enough to float a boat, but which nevertheless were held to lack navigable capacity. See United States v. Rio
    Search
  31. Leovy v. United
    Search
  32. North American Dredging Co. v. Mintzer
    Search
  33. Toledo Liberal Shooting Co. v. Erie
    Search
  34. Harrison v. Fite
    Search
  35. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Armack
    Search
  36. previous meander lines, has repeatedly recognized that Lake Malheur is nonnavigable. See French Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer
    Search
  37. Cawlfield v. Smyth
    Search
  38. Bailey v. Malheur
    Search
  39. of the United States to Maintain the Suit Oregon contends that the State has never adopted the rule of Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  40. never been applied by this Court, and further is not applicable to lakes the size of Malheur and Harney. See Stewart v. Turney
    Search
  41. Granger v. Canandaigua
    Search
  42. Richardson v. Sims
    Search
  43. Boardman v. Scott
    Search
  44. to support the bill, is subject to possibly superior rights in third persons not parties to the suit. Van Wyck v. Knevals
    Search
  45. See also Gridley v. Wynant
    Search
  46. Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli
    Search
  47. basis for relief in equity to remove the cloud created by the assertion of any inferior title of the State. Wehrman v. Conklin
    Search
  48. Sharon v. Tucker
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Oregon
    Search
  50. the Union. Shively v. Bowlby
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial