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.
In this original jurisdiction dispute between Oklahoma and Texas over their shared boundary along the Red River, the Supreme Court received and filed a report from court-appointed commissioners who had surveyed and marked a portion of the boundary line in the Fort Augur Area, and established a four-week period for the states to submit any objections to the commissioners' findings before the Court would proceed to final judgment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The commissioners heretofore designated to run, locate and mark upon the ground portions of the boundary line between the States of Texas and Oklahoma, where it follows the course of the Red River, having this day presented a report, with accompanying maps, showing that they have run, located and marked upon the ground the portion of the boundary along the Fort Augur Area, that is to say, from the westerly end of the Big Bend Area to a southerly extension of the west line of range sixteen west in Oklahoma;
And it appearing from such report that the said commissioners have transmitted copies of such report, with the accompanying maps, by registered mail to the Attorney General of the United States, the Attorney General of the State of Texas and the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and have lodged with the clerk fifty additional copies of such report and maps for the use of such private interveners as may apply for them;
It is ordered that the said report, with the accompanying maps, be received and filed by the clerk.
And it is further ordered that all objections or exceptions to such, report, if there be any such objections or exceptions, shall be presented to the court or filed with the clerk within a period of four weeks from this date; and the period heretofore fixed for presenting or filing such objections or exceptions is limited and modified accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pasco Cnty. Peach Ass'n v. J. F. Solley & Co., Inc., 146 F.2d 880 (4th Cir. 1945)…ctual or constructive) of the practice relied on, it cannot be said to be absolutely bound by any such custom existing in Baltimore. United States Shipping Board, etc., v. Levensaler, 53 App.D.C. 322, 290 F. 297, 303, certiorari denied 266 U.S. 630, 45 S.Ct. 195, 69 L.Ed. 477; see also 7 Ann.Cas. 651. However, if it were assumed, for purposes [*883] of argument, that such a custom existed in Baltimore and further, that Pasco was aware of this custom, in the face of Pasco’s specific notice to Solley, the b…
-
Levensaler v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp., 1 F.2d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 1924)…eview or modification of our for-mer opinion. The judgment, therefore, is affirmed with costs. Motion for^ stay of mandate, pending application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, granted November 10, 1924. Certiorari denied 45 S. Ct. 195, 69 L. Ed. —.…