STATE OF OKLAHOMA
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, UNITED STATES, INTERVENER
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.
Oklahoma sued Texas over the location of the Texas-Oklahoma border along the Red River, with the United States intervening. The Supreme Court held that a specific oil well and appurtenant land located south of the river's sand bed as of April 1, 1920, belonged to Texas and should be returned to the General Oil Company, while denying the company's broader motion for return of other disputed lands.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
It is ordered that said Receiver do return to said General Oil Company one certain well known by Receiver’s number one hundred and seventy-six (176), which lies south of the south edge of the sand bed of the Red River as it was on the first day of April, 1920, (marked generally by the border line of vegetation along the edge of the flood plain), together with the land appurtenant thereto lying to the south of the south edge of the sand bed of said river, and the structures, equipment, and material pertaining to said well, and the net proceeds of the production thereof that have come to the hands of said Receiver, less operating expenses and reservations, upon terms that said General Oil Company comply with the provisions contained in the order of tifis Court made June 7, 1920, respecting the return of certain lands lying south of the south edge of the sand bed of said river which were on the first day of April, 1920, in the possession of persons claim ing under patents from the State of Texas, and not included in the river bed landfc as in said order defined.
It is further ordered that except as herein above granted the motion of said General Oil Company .for the return of lands, filed November 15, 1920, be, and it is hereby, denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1987)…(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 679, 60 S.Ct. 717, 84 L.Ed. 1023 (1940); United States v. Patrick, 54 F. 338, 342-43 (C.C.M.D.Tenn.1893); United States v. Wheeler, 254 F. 611, 624 (D.Ariz.1918), aff'd on other grounds, 254 U.S. 281, 41 S.Ct. 133, 65 L.Ed. 270 (1920). Thus, in addition to the plain language of the statute itself, Supreme Court precedent requires an offense under § 241 to be committed against one who is a citizen. C. Legislative History The legislative history of § 241 further confirms…
-
Rector v. United States, 20 F.2d 845 (8th Cir. 1927)…Ed. 1015, 1017; Swift v. Black Panther O. & G. Co., 244 F. 20, this court), or to employ others to operate for him and at his expense (Oklahoma v. Texas, 253 U. S. 465, 467, 40 S. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. 1015, 1017, also see 254 U. S. 280, 41 S. Ct. 146, 65 L. Ed. 270; and Id., 254 U. S. 604, 41 S. Ct. 317, 65 L. Ed. 434). It could have ordered him to proceed under contracts already made. The choice was a matter of discretion, naturally based upon the actual conditions facing the court and in which jt found the p…1 / 2
-
Hemans v. United States, 163 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1947)…ons reveal. (7) Turning now to a discussion of the principal authorities upon which appellant relies in his attack upon the constitutionality of the Act, we find that he is not supported by United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 41 S.Ct. 133, 136, 65 L. Ed. 270. The concluding paragraph of Chief Justice White’s opinion makes it plain that, regardless of his expressions concerning the right of citizens to have free ingress and egress among the states, nothing said “must be considered as implying a want of p…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence