OKLAHOMA
v.
TEXAS
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 and Texas disputed the location of their boundary along the Red River, and the Supreme Court confirmed the third report submitted by court-appointed commissioners that established the boundary line along the south bank of the Red River from the One Hundredth meridian to the eastern limit of Lamar County, Texas. The Court declared this delineated boundary to be the true boundary between the states, subject to natural changes from erosion and accretion.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
On consideration of the third report of the Commissioners, heretofore selected to run, locate and mark portions of the boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma along the south bank of the Red River, showing that they have run, located and marked particular portions of such boundary from the One Hundredth meridian of longitude to the eastern limit of Lamar Cflunty, Texas, other than the Big Bend and Fort Augur areas covered by two reports heretofore presented and confirmed, which said third report was presented and filed herein November 16, 1925;
And no objection or. exception to such report being presented, although the time therefor has expired;
It' is now adjudged, ordered and decreed that the said report be in all respects confirmed.
It is further adjudged, ordered and decreed that the boundary line delineated and set forth in the report and on the maps accompanying the same and referred to therein be established and declared to be the true boundary between the States of-Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River at the several places designated in such report, subject, however, to such changes as may hereafter be wrought by the natural and gradual processes known as erosion and accretion as specified in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the decree rendered herein March 12, 1923, 261 U. S. 340.
It is further ordered that the clerk of this Court do transmit to the Chief Magistrates of the States of Texas and Oklahoma copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this Court together with copies of the said report and of the maps accompanying the same.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (52 total)
-
Talcott v. United States, 23 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1928)…was denied. 258 U. S. 617, 42 S. Ct. 371, 66 L. Ed. 793.' In the present case the court below was of the opinion that the decision in Wardell v. Blum was impliedly overruled by the decision in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 46 S. Ct. 184, 70 L. Ed 285, and it's foundation was overturned in Stewart v. Stewart, 199 Cal. 318, 249 P. 197. The first of those eases arose, not under the estate tax provision of the Federal Revenue Act, but under the provision which imposes an income tax. We turn first…
-
Mitchel v. Bowers, 15 F.2d 287 (2d Cir. 1926)…t the taxpayer surrender part of his principal. Nor did Congress ever intend to tax the partnership, and later tax the individuals who received part of the profits, as Mrs. Mitehel did. In the case of U. S. v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, 46 S. Ct. 148, 70 L. Ed. 285, the Supreme Court ruled that the wife, having an interest [*292] in community property, had merely an expectancy in such property while her husband lived, as decided by the state court, and therefore the whole income tax under the Revenue Act of 19…1 / 2
-
Oklahoma v. Texas, 272 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1926)
Previewing 3 of 52 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Okla. v. State of Tex. United States, 261 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1923)