Citation network
United States Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 05, 1950
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. 707 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. 707 (1950) United States v. TexasSearch
-
interests and national responsibilities, thereby giving rise to paramount national rights in it. United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to extend the boundary to the outer edge of the continental shelf do not require a different result. United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
S. 709 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit, like its companion United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
in, and full dominion and power over, the marginal sea off the shores of California and Louisiana ( see United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
issues of high public importance, has always been liberal in allowing full development of the facts. United States v. TexasSearch
-
Oklahoma v. TexasSearch
-
clause has long been held to refer to political rights and to sovereignty. See Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
soil. Some had special agreements with the Federal Government governing property within their borders. See Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
States did not grant these properties to the United States, but reserved them to themselves. See Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Weber v. HarborSearch
-
Knight v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MissionSearch
-
The theory of these decisions was aptly summarized by Mr. Justice Stone, speaking for the Court, in United States v. OregonSearch
-
by the sovereign of the lands to be held in private ownership or transfer of sovereignty itself. See Massachusetts v. NewSearch
-
had to the marginal sea was relinquished to the United States. We stated the reasons for this in United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
subject upon which the nation may enter into and assume treaty or similar international obligations. See United States v. BelmontSearch
-
sea can be complete and unimpaired no matter if Texas owns the oil underlying it. Yet, as pointed out in United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of Texas from the national sovereignty of the United States. Yet neither the original thirteen States ( United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Page 339 U. S. 720 have been excluded, just as it prevents a contraction of sovereignty ( Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
See Coyle v. SmithSearch
-
The irrelevancy of these acts to the issue before us has been adequately demonstrated in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
The other contentions of Texas need not be detailed. They have been foreclosed by United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
The same idea was expressed somewhat differently by Mr. Justice Field in Weber v. BoardSearch
-
See the statement of Mr. Justice Field (then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California) in Moore v. SmawSearch
-
REED, with whom MR. JUSTICE MINTON joins, dissenting. This case brings before us the application of United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Martin v. Waddell'sSearch
-
holding of this Court that, ordinarily, lands may be the subject of compact between a state and the Nation. Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the time of annexation) includes the land under the marginal sea. I think that it does include those lands. Cf. Hynes v. GrimesSearch
-
Time has not made the reasoning of United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
This is also the opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER in No. 12, Original, United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. TexasSearch
-
United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
See Pollard's Lessee v. HaganSearch
-
See Massachusetts v. NewSearch
-
See United States v. BelmontSearch
-
Weber v. BoardSearch
-
Moore v. SmawSearch
-
of United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and the Nation. Stearns v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Cf. Hynes v. GrimesSearch
-
Original, United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
Kansas v. ColoradoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial