TENNESSEE
v.
ARKANSAS
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 fixed the boundary line between Tennessee and Arkansas as geodetically described in Exhibit A, incorporating it by reference.
This case involves a dispute over the boundary line between the States of Tennessee and Arkansas in a specific sector of the Mississippi River. The Co…
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 State Boundary Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. The boundary line between the States of Tennessee and Arkansas in the area in controversy is fixed as geodetically described in Exhibit A, appended hereto, and as shown on Appendix E to the Special Master’s Report filed with this Court on April 13, 1981. Said Exhibit E is incorporated by reference herein. 2. The costs of this proceeding shall be divided equally between the parties. EXHIBIT “A”
TENNESSEE-ARKANSAS STATE BOUNDARY IN THE ELMOT BAR-ISLAND 30 SECTOR OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER The following is a description, by geodetic position (North American Datum) of the locus of the Tennessee-Arkansas State Boundary that became fixed in the abandoned Fletcher Bend Channel that bounds Elmot Bar-Island 30 on the North and West. This boundary, lying between North Latitude 35° 40' 30.8" and North 35° 45' 34.6" and West Longitude 89° 52' 35" and West Longitude 89° 57' 31.5", begins at the head of Elmot Bar-Island 30 Chute Channel and thence runs Northwestward, Southwestward, Southward and Southeastward, along fixed (dead) thalweg and last steamboat navigation course in the abandoned Fletcher Bend Channel to the foot of Elmot Bar-Island 30 Chute Channel. The Locus of the said Tennessee-Arkansas State Boundary is depicted on the 1973-1975 Mississippi River Hydrographic Survey and is described as beginning at the head of the Elmot Bar-Island 30 Chute Channel at Point P-1 at North Latitude 35° 44' 30.8" and West Longitude 89° 52' 35"; Thence North to Point P-2, Lat. 35° 44' 16.8" and Long. 89° 52' 35"; Thence Northward to Point P-3, Lat. 35° 44' 28.7" and Long. 89° 52' 38"; Thence Northwestward to Point-4,, Lat. 35° 44' 42" and Long. 89° 53'; Thence Northwestward to Point-5, Lat. 35° 45' and Long. 89° 53' 22"; Thence Northwestward to Point-6, Lat. 35° 45' 10" and Long. 89° 53' 35"; Thence Northwestward to Point-7, Lat. 35° 45' 17.8" and Long. 89° 53' 47"; Thence Northwestward to Point-8, Lat. 35° 45' 25.5" and Long. 89° 54'; Thence Northwestward to Point-9, Lat. 35° 45' 34.6" and Long. 89° 54' 18"; Thence Westward to Point-10, Lat. 35° 45' 33.5" and Long. 89° 54' 30"; Thence Southwestward to Point-11, Lat. 35° 45' 29.7" and Long. 89° 54' 40"; Thence Southwestward to Point-12, Lat. 35° 45' 23.8" and Long. 89° 54' 47"; Thence Southwestward to Point-13, Lat. 35° 45' 15.6" and Long. 89° 55'; Thence Southwestward to Point-14,, Lat. 35° 45' and Long. 89° 55' 30"; Thence Southwestward to Point-15, Lat. 35° 44' 46.5" and Long. 89° 56'; Thence Southwestward to Point-16, Lat. 35° 44' 36.6" and Long. 89° 56' 20"; Thence Southwestward to Point-17, Lat. 35° 44' 27.9" and Long. 89° 56' 40"; Thence Southwestward to Point-18, Lat. 35° 44' 18.9" and Long. 89° 57'; Thence Southwestward to Point-19, Lat. 35° 44' 10.1" and Long. 89° 57' 14"; Thence Southwestward to Point-20, Lat. 35° 44' and Long. 89° 57' 23"; Thence Southwestward to Point-21, Lat. 35° 43' 39.2" and Long. 89° 57' 31"; Thence Southward to Point-22, Lat. 35° 43' 23.9" and Long. 89° 57' 31.5"; Thence Southward to Point-28, Lat. 35° 43' and Long. 89° 57' 28.5"; Thence Southward to Point-24, Lat. 35° 42' 42.6" and Long. 89° 57' 25"; Thence South to Point-25, Lat. 35° 42' 21.3" and Long. 89° 57' 25"; Thence Southward to Point-26, Lat. 35° 42' and Long. 89° 57' 23"; Thence Southward to Point-27, Lat. 35° 41' 43.6" and Long. 89° 57' 23.5"; Thence Southward to Point-28, Lat. 35° 41' 26.1" and Long. 89° 57' 21"; Thence Southeastward to Point-29, Lat. 35° 41' 11.4" and Long. 89° 57' 12"; Thence Southeastward to Point-80, Lat. 35° 41' and Long. 89° 57' 03.5"; Thence Southeastward to Point-31, Lat. 35° 40' 56.4" and Long. 89° 57'; Thence Southeastward to Point-32, Lat. 35° 40' 30.8" and Long. 89° 56' 34" at the foot of the Elmot Bar-Island 30 Chute Channel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference OF Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982)…esent case also serve to distinguish our holding from the Supreme Court’s recent action in vacating this court’s decision in Security Bancorp v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 655 F. 2d 164 (9th Cir. 1979), vacated, 454 U.S. 1118, 102 S.Ct. 962, 71 L.Ed.2d 105 (1981). In Security Bancorp, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Governors’ (Board’s) denial of petitioner’s application to form a bank holding company. The Board’s decision was based upon the applicant’s “inadequate managerial…1 / 2
-
Willis v. Lansome Newsome, 747 F.2d 605 (11th Cir. 1984)…nd therefore was untimely, he had until October 21, 1983, to file a motion to extend. Although the mailbox rule does not apply to notices of appeal, see Barksdale v. Blackburn, 647 F. 2d 630 (5th Cir., 1981), rev’d on other grounds, 454 U.S. 1118, 102 S.Ct. 962, 71 L.Ed.2d 106 (1981), modified, 670 F. 2d 22 (5th Cir.1982), and would not be an appropriate custom for the district court’s filing procedure, the instant case presents a somewhat different issue. If Willis was indeed relying on the district court…
-
The Nestle Co., Inc. v. Chester's Mkt., Inc., 756 F.2d 280 (2d Cir. 1985)…e Supreme Court summarily vacated the entire judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Accord, Security Bancorp v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 655 F. 2d 164 (9th Cir.1980), [*283] vacated, 454 U.S. 1118, 102 S.Ct. 962, 71 L.Ed.2d 105 (1981). So far as we can determine, the practice in our circuit has been to vacate district court judgments when a settlement moots the controversy. See Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 638 F. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence