43 375 United States v. Florida
| Citation | 420 U.S. 531,95 S.Ct. 1162,43 L.Ed.2d 375 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 52,52 |
| Parties | . 43 L.Ed.2d 375 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. State of FLORIDA. rig |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Keith A. Jones, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before the Court for consideration are the exceptions of the State of Florida and of the United States to the Report of the Special Master filed February 19, 1974. Oral argument has been had.
The case consolidates two proceedings. In the first, the United States seeks a decree defining the seaward boundary of the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean in which Florida has rights to the natural resources. United States v. Maine, 395 U.S. 955, 89 S.Ct. 2095, 23 L.Ed.2d 743. (1969). In the second, the State of Florida and the United States seek a decree defining more specifically than does the decree entered in United States v. Louisiana, 364 U.S. 502, 81 S.Ct. 258, 5 L.Ed.2d 247 (1960), the seaward boundary of the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico in which Florida has rights to the natural resources. 403 U.S. 949, 91 S.Ct. 2272, 29 L.Ed.2d 861 (1971).
In its exceptions to the Report, the State of Florida maintains that in his recommendations the Special Master should have recognized that the said boundaries extend to the boundaries defined in the State's 1868 Constitution, rather than to the limits specified in the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, § 2(b), 67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. § 1301(b); that the Special Master should have recognized that the Florida Keys and the Straits of Florida southwest of longitude 25 40 N. are part of the Gulf of Mexico, rather than of the Atlantic Ocean; that the Special Master erred in construing the 1868 Constitution of the State as to its Atlantic Ocean boundary and as to its boundary between the Dry Tortugas Islands and Cape Romano; and that the Special Master erred in failing to recognize 'Florida Bay' as a historic bay and thus as inland waters of the State.
Having considered each of these exceptions, we conclude that they are correctly answered in the Report of the Special Master. The exceptions of the State of Florida are therefore overruled.
In its exceptions to the Report, the United States maintains that the Special Master erred in recommending the recognition of a portion of Florida Bay as a 'juridical' bay and in recommending the drawing of 'closing lines' around three groups of islands that make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc
...galleon were discovered. In the meantime, in proceedings unrelated to the salvage operations, it was held in United States v. Florida, 420 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 1162, 43 L.Ed.2d 375, that, as against Florida, the United States was entitled to the lands, minerals, and other natural resources in......
-
Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. UNIDENTIFIED WRECKED, ETC.
...a scheme by the Division to deprive Treasure Salvors of all salvaged treasure. After the Special Master in United States v. Florida, 420 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 1162, 43 L.Ed.2d 375 (1975), determined that Florida boundaries did not in fact encompass the wreck site, and immediately after oral ar......
-
Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel
...with the state of Florida. Under the contract, the state was entitled to 25% Of the finds. The decision in United States v. Florida, 420 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 1162, 43 L.Ed.2d 375 (1975), refuted Florida's claim to the wreck site, and the contract was cancelled. See also United States v. Flori......
-
United States v. Collins
...as to fisheries matters. See United States v. Florida, 425 U.S. 791, 96 S.Ct. 1840, 48 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976); United States v. Florida, 420 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 1162, 43 L.Ed.2d 375 (1975). However, the Florida Constitution makes no such distinction, nor would recognition of Florida sovereignty ......