UNITED STATES
v.
CALIFORNIA
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 court supplemented prior decrees to define specific inland waters and clarify which artificial structures do not form part of the coastline for federal-state boundary purposes under the Submerged Lands Act.
This supplemental decree follows previous orders regarding the Port of San Pedro and San Diego Bay. It specifically defines the inland waters of these…
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 Submerged Lands Act cases and more on FLexlaw
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Decree of October 27, 1947 (332 U. S. 804), and the Supplemental Decrees heretofore entered in this cause on January 31, 1966 (382 U. S. 448), June 13, 1977 (432 U. S. 40), and November 27, 1978 (439 U. S. 30), be, and the same hereby are further supplemented as follows: 1. The inland waters of the Port of San Pedro include those waters enclosed by a straight line from the eastern end of the Long Beach breakwater (NOS Chart 18749, 33°43'23'' N., 118°08'10'' W.) to the seaward end of the east jetty of Anaheim Bay (NOS Chart 18749, 33°43'36" N., 118°05'57'' W.).
2. The inland waters of San Diego Bay are those enclosed by a straight line from the seaward end of Point Loma (NOS Chart 18772, 32°39'46" N., 117°14'29" W.) to the point at which the line of mean lower low water intersects with the southern seaward end of the entire Zuniga jetty (NOS Chart 18772, 32°40'00.5" N., 117°13'19" W.).
3. The following artificial structures do not form part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the federal-state boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.
S. C. § 1301 et seq.: a. The Sharp Beach pier (NOS Chart 18685, 37°38'00" N., 122°29'41" W.); b. The Morro Strand pier (NOS Chart 18703, 35°24'-38.4" N., 120°52'31.9" W.); c. The Port Orford pier (NOS Chart 18721, 34°28'09.6" N., 120°13'38.8" W.); d. The Ellwood pier (NOS Chart 18721, 34°25'39" N., 119°55'20" W.) ; e. The Santa Barbara Biltmore Hotel pier (NOS Chart 18725, 34°24'59.4" N., 119°38'30" W.); f. The Carpintería pier (NOS Chart 18725, 34°23'06" N., 119°30'4.6" W.); g. The Punta Gorda causeway and Rincon Island (NOS Chart 18725, 34°20'48.1" N., 119°26'39" W.); h. The Venice pier (NOS Chart 18744, 30°59'06" N., 118°28'35" W.); i. The Manhattan Beach pier (NOS Chart 18744, 33°-53'00" N., 118°24'48.2" W.); j. The Hermosa Beach pier (NOS Chart 18744, 33°51'-40.2" N., 118°24'16.9" W.); k. The Huntington Beach pier (NOS Chart 18740, 33°-09'14" N., 118°00'21" W.); l. The Newport Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 33°36'-22.0" N., 117°55'49.6" W.); m. The Balboa Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 33°35'54.4" N., 117°54'01.1" W.); n. The Oceanside pier (NOS Chart 18740, 33°11'29.4" N., 117°23'18" W.); o. The Ocean Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 32°44'-58.5" N., 117°15'30.5" W.); and p. The Imperial Beach pier (NOS Chart 18772, 32°34'-46.6" N., 117°08'08.0" W.). 4. The parties having paid their own costs and having contributed equally to a fund for expenses of the Special Master, any amounts remaining in said fund after deduction of all expenses by the Special Master shall be divided equally and returned to each party by the Special Master.
5. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Clarence Samuel Robinson (84-5140), 763 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1985)…e defendant. E.g., United States v. Kopituk, 690 F. 2d 1289, 1323 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928, 103 S.Ct. 2089, 77 L.Ed.2d 300 (1983); United States v. Sutton, 642 F. 2d 1001, 1020 (6th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 912, 69 L.Ed.2d 995 (1981). Further, a jury verdict must be upheld if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government substantial competent evidence supports the verdict. E.g., Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17, 98 S.Ct. 2141,…
-
United States v. State of Cal., 135 S. Ct. 563 (U.S. 2014)…Between 1977 and 1981, this Court issued three additional supplemental decrees further delineating particular portions of the federal-state boundary. 432 U.S. 40, 97 S.Ct. 2915, 53 L.Ed.2d 94 (1977); 439 U.S. 30, 99 S.Ct. 556, 58 L.Ed.2d 267 (1978); 449 U.S. 408, 101 S.Ct. 912, 66 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981). For the purpose of identifying with greater particularity the boundary line between the submerged lands of California and those of the United States, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows: 1. As aga…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. California, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2865 (U.S. 1947)
- United States v. California, 382 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. California, 432 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. California, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2903 (U.S. 1947)