NICOULIN
v.
O'BRIEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Kentucky validly convicted a person of violating its statute prohibiting seining for fish in the Ohio River at a location within Kentucky's territorial boundaries, and the Virginia Compact's grant of concurrent jurisdiction over the river did not restrict Kentucky's power to regulate fishing within its own territory. The Court held that concurrent jurisdiction over a navigable waterway does not limit a state's authority to protect fish and enforce conservation laws within its own boundaries.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Justice McReynolds.
Plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the prohibition of a Kentucky statute by seining for fish in the Ohio River south of low-water mark on the Indiana side. 172 Kentucky, 473. We are asked to hold that by reason of the Virginia Compact (13 Hening’s Statutes at Large, c. 14, pp. 17, 19), Kentucky had no power to regulate fishing in the river at that point without Indiana’s concurrence. The provision relied upon is this: “Seventh, that the use and navigation of the river Ohio, so far as the territory of the.proposed state, or the territory which shall remain within the limits of-this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States, and the respective jurisdictions of this Commonwealth and of J;he proposed state on the river as aforesaid,'shall be concurrent only'with the states which may possess the opposite shores of the said river.”
The territorial limits of Kentucky extend across the river to low-water mark on the northerly shore. Indiana y) Kentucky,. 136 U. S. 479, 519. And We think it clear no limitátion upon the.power of that Commonwealth to protect fish within her own boundaries by proper, legislation resulted from the mere establishment of concurrent jurisdiction by the Virginia Compact. See Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573; Central R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 209 U. S. 473;Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315; McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn., 245 U. S. 352.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burrows v. Moran, 81 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1921)…2; Neilson v. State of Oregon, 212 U. S. 315, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26, 10 S. W. Rep. 595, 3 L. R. A. 390; Roberts v. Fullerton, 117 Wis. 222, 93 N. W. Rep. 1111; 7 R. C. L. 1066; Nicoulin v. O’Brien, 248 U. S. 113, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23; Nicoulin v. O’Brien, 172 Ky. 473, 189 S. W. Rep. 724; J. S. Keater Lumber Co. v. St. Croix Corp., 72 Wis. 62, 38 N. W. Rep. 529. See also Olin v. Kitzmiller, 268 Fed. Rep. 348. [*666] The Eighteenth Amendment is the supreme law…
-
Marine Ry. & Coal Co., Inc. v. United States, 257 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1921)
-
Ohio v. Kentucky, 410 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1973)…s as the lands to the north, or the north and west, 2 Laws 14, 104, 138, 179, 311, 421, 533; 3 Laws 367, 385, 396, 596, 612. Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 U. S. 592 (1899); Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573 (1904); Nicoulin v. O’Brien, 248 U. S. 113 (1918). Handly’s Lessee v. Anthony, 5 Wheat. 374, 377, 379. See ibid.; Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479, 503-504. Lessee of McCullock v. Aten, 2 Ohio 307 (1826); Lessee of Blanchard v. Porter, 11 Ohio 138 (1841); Booth v. Shepherd, 8 Ohio St. 2…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1890)
- Wedding v. Metler, 192 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1904)
- Nielsen v. State of Or., 212 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1909)
- McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Ass'n, 245 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1917)
- Cent. R.R. Co. of N.J. v. Jersey City, 209 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1908)