UTAH
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
The United States is enjoined from asserting claims to certain lands within the meander line of the Great Salt Lake and its resources, and the State of Utah is not required to pay for these lands.
This decree follows prior proceedings and decrees concerning the boundary of the Great Salt Lake and the United States' claims to lands and resources …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Boundary Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that:
1. Taking into consideration Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the decree of this Court entered May 22, 1972, Utah v. United States, 406 U. S. 484, 485-486, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the decree of this Court entered February 19, 1975, Utah v. United States, 420 U. S. 304, 305-306, and the further proceedings had herein pursuant to the decree of this Court entered February 19, 1975, Utah v. United States, 420 U. S. 304, and
2. Subject to any federal regulatory authority that may extend to the Great Salt Lake or its shorelands, the United States of America, its departments and agencies, are enjoined from asserting against the State of Utah any claim of right, title and interest:
(a) to any lands within the meander line of the Great Salt Lake (as duly surveyed prior to or in accordance with Section 1 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192), with the exception of any lands within the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, the Weber Basin Federal Reclamation Project, and the Hill Air Force Range (as bounded by water’s edge June 15, 1967), the title to which last-named parcel is not decided by this decree;
(b) to the natural resources and living organisms in or beneath the lands delineated in (a) above; and (c) to the natural resources and living organisms either within the waters of the Great Salt Lake, or extracted therefrom, as delineated in (a) above.
3. The State of Utah is not required to pay the United States for the lands, including the minerals, delineated in paragraph 2 above of this decree.
4. The prayer of the United States in its answer to the State of Utah’s Complaint that this Court “confirm, declare and establish that the United States is the owner of all right, title and interest in all of the lands described in Section 2 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, as amended by the Act of August 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 349, and that the State of Utah is without any right, title or interest in such lands, save for the right to have these lands conveyed to it by the United States, and to pay for them, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 3,1966, as amended,” is denied.*
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this decree.
*
When “lands” appears in this decree to describe the interests involved, the word is used to include the brines and minerals in solution in the brines or precipitated or extracted therefrom.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1978)…and which becomes exposed by the gradual recession of water belongs “to the riparian owner from whose shore or bank the water has receded . . . .” 93 C.J.S. Waters § 78 (1956). See also the second Report of the Special Master, Utah v. United States, 427 U.S. 461, 96 S.Ct. 3187, 49 L.Ed.2d 625 (1976), published in 1976 Utah L.Rev. 245, 267-69. . Our review of the record convinces us that the district judge correctly concluded that the David survey was grossly inaccurate. For example, the tract of land invol…
-
Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980)…mates, have the ability to perform this task. Like difficulties have not dissuaded the Court from concluding that locations specified many decades ago are proper and definitive boundaries. See, e. g., Utah v. United States, 420 U. S. 304 (1975), and 427 U. S. 461 (1976); New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U. S. 363 (1976), and 434 U. S. 1 (1977). The dissent’s concern about the possibility, surely extremely remote, that the comparatively stable Ohio River might “pass completely out of Kentucky’s borders,” post, at…
Authorities Cited
- Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1971)
- Utah v. United States, 420 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1975)