UNITED STATES
v.
LOUISIANA ET AL. (LOUISIANA BOUNDARY CASE)

U.S. | 1975-03-17
No. 9
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Maeshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
420 U.S. 529 Supreme Court of the United States (1975) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 43 L. Ed. 2d 373 · 95 S. Ct. 1180 · 1975 U.S. LEXIS 42 · SCDB 1974-063
Cited by 61 cases

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.


Holding

The Court accepted the Special Master's recommendations and overruled exceptions filed by the United States and Louisiana.


Facts & Procedural History

The case involved a dispute over the baseline for measuring Louisiana's territorial waters under the Submerged Lands Act. A Special Master was appoint…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Decree.

Upon consideration of the Report filed July 31, 1974, by Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., Special Master, of the exceptions filed thereto by the United States and by the State of Louisiana, and after oral argument thereon, It Is Now Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows:

1. The exceptions filed by the United States to the Report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled. 2. The exceptions filed by the State of Louisiana to the Report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled.

3. The recommendations contained dn the Report of the Special Master are accepted.

4. The parties are directed to prepare and file a decree, for entry by this Court, establishing “a baseline along the entire coast of the State of Louisiana from which the extent of the territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act can be measured.” Report of the Special Master 53. If the parties cannot agree upon the form of the decree, then they shall refer any remaining disputes to the Special Master for his recommendations. In the event of such a referral, the Special Master is authorized to hold such hearings, take such evidence, and conduct such proceedings as he may deem appropriate and, in due course, to report his recommendations to this Court.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Maeshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (53 total)

  • Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006)
    …ction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (citing Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 580-81, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 469 (1975)). When construing the meaning of a statute, “the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute’s meaning, in all but the most extrao…
  • United States v. Casimir Staszcuk, 517 F.2d 53 (7th Cir. 1975)
    …s scholarly consideration of what it deems Congress probably intended as the scope of its exercise of constitutional power to regulate commerce, ignores that which Congress did in fact enact. In the recent case of Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 580, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 1184, 43 L.Ed.2d 469 (1975), the Supreme Court referred to the “axiom that words used in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning in the absence of persuasive reasons to the contrary.” The ordinary meanings of the jurisdictional words, “obs…
  • …s they are specifically defined otherwise within the statute.” Rhodes v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 501 F. 2d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 928, 95 S.Ct. 1126, 43 L.Ed.2d 398 (1975); see Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 580-81, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 1184-1185, 43 L.Ed.2d 469 (1975); 2A C. Sands, [Sutherland on] Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.28 (4th ed. 1973). The usual meaning of the word “or” is that it “indicates alternatives.” Azure v. Morton, 514 F. 2d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 1975);…

Previewing 3 of 53 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw