Louisiana v. Mississippi, 121
| Decision Date | 31 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | 121 |
| Citation | 116 S.Ct. 290,133 L.Ed.2d 265,516 U.S. 22 |
| Parties | State of LOUISIANA, Plaintiff, v. State of MISSISSIPPI et al. rig |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER
Louisiana's bill of complaint in this original action asks the Court, inter alia, to define the boundary between that State and Mississippi along a 7-mile stretch of the Mississippi River. The case is here on Louisiana's exceptions to the report of the Special Master appointed by the Court.
Held: Louisiana's exceptions are overruled. The case is controlled by the island exception to the rule of the thalweg. The latter rule specifies that the river boundary between States lies along the main downstream navigational channel, or thalweg, and moves as the channel changes with the gradual processes of erosion and accretion. The island exception to that rule provides that if there is a divided river flow around an island, a boundary once established on one side of the island remains there, even though the main downstream navigation channel shifts to the island's other side. Pursuant to the island exception, the Special Master placed the boundary here at issue on the west side of the area here in dispute, thereby confirming Mississippi's sovereignty over the area. The Master took that action after finding that the area derived from Stack Island, which had originally been within Mississippi's boundary before the river's main navigational channel shifted to the east of the island, but which, through erosion on its east side and accretion on its west side, changed from its original location, next to the river's Mississippi bank, to its current location, abutting the Louisiana bank. The Master's findings and conclusions are carefully drawn and well documented with compelling evidence, whereas Louisiana's theory of the case is not supported by the evidence. Pp. ___-___.
Exceptions overruled, and Special Master's report and proposed decree adopted.
Gary L. Keyser, Baton Rouge, LA, for plaintiff.
James W. McCartney, Houston, TX, for defendant Houston Group.
Robert R. Bailes, Vicksburg, MS, for defendant Mississippi.
ON BILL OF COMPLAINT
Like the shifting river channel near the property in dispute, this litigation has traversed from one side of our docket to the other. We must first recount this procedural history.
In an earlier action, Mississippi citizens sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to quiet title to the subject property. Certain Louisiana citizens were named as defendants. The parties asserted conflicting ownership claims to an area of about 2,000 acres, stretching seven miles along the Louisiana bank of the Mississippi River, near Lake Providence, Louisiana. The State of Louisiana and the Lake Providence Port Commission intervened in that action and filed a third-party complaint against the State of Mississippi. Concerned, however, with the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear its matter, Louisiana took the further step of instituting an original action in this Court, and it filed a motion here for leave to file a bill of complaint. We denied the motion. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 488 U.S. 990, 109 S.Ct. 551, 102 L.Ed.2d 579 (1988).
The District Court heard the case pending before it and, in an order by Judge Barbour, ruled in favor of Mississippi. Louisiana, however, prevailed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 937 F.2d 247 (1991), and we granted Mississippi's petition for certiorari. Mississippi v. Louisiana, 503 U.S. 935, 112 S.Ct. 1472, 117 L.Ed.2d 616 (1992).
After hearing oral argument on both substantive issues and jurisdiction, we resolved only the latter. We held that there was no jurisdiction in the District Court, or in the Court of Appeals, to grant any relief in the quiet title action to one State against the other, that authority being reserved for jurisdiction exclusive to this Court. Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. 73, 77-78, 113 S.Ct. 549, ---- - ----, 121 L.Ed.2d 466 (1992); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). We remanded the case so the complaint filed by Louisiana could be dismissed in the District Court and for the Court of Appeals to d etermine what further proceedings were necessary with respect to the claims of the private parties.
Upon remand, Louisiana asked the District Court to stay further action in the case to allow Louisiana once again to seek permission to file a bill of complaint in this Court. The District Court agreed, noting that our decision on the boundary issue would solve the District Court's choice of law problem and would be the fairest method of resolving the fundamental issue for all parties.
Louisiana did file a renewed motion in our Court for leave to file a bill of complaint. We granted it, allowing leave to file against Mississippi and persons called the Houston Group, who asserted ownership to the disputed area and who supported Mississippi's position on the boundary issue. Louisiana asked us to define the boundary between the two States and cancel the Houston Group's claim of title. After granting leave to file, we appointed Vincent L. McKusick, former Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, as Special Master. The case is now before us on Louisiana's exceptions to his report, and there is no jurisdictional bar to our resolving the questions presented.
We deem it necessary to do no more than give a brief summary of the law and of the Special Master's careful and well-documented findings and conclusions, for Louisiana's exceptions have little merit and must be rejected.
The controlling legal principles are not in dispute. In all four of the prior cases that have involved the Mississippi River boundary between Louisiana and Mississippi, we have applied the rule of the thalweg. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 466 U.S. 96, 99, 104 S.Ct. 1645, 1647, 80 L.Ed.2d 74 (1984); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 384 U.S. 24, 25-26, 86 S.Ct. 1250, 1251-1252, 16 L.Ed.2d 330, reh'g denied, 384 U.S. 958, 86 S.Ct. 1567, 16 L.Ed.2d 553 (1966); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. 458, 459, 51 S.Ct. 197, 198, 75 L.Ed. 459 (1931); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 49, 26 S.Ct. 408, 421, 50 L.Ed. 913 (1906). Though there are exceptions, the rule is that the river boundary between States lies along the main downstream navigational channel, or thalweg, and moves as the channel changes with the gradual processes of erosion and accretion. Louisiana v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Padilla, Bankruptcy No. 04-42708.
-
In re Quality Health Care
... ... by the IRS dated April 30, 1996, was issued by the IRS' local office located at 8398 Mississippi Street, Merrillville, Ind. 46410. Accordingly, because the Notice of the Debtor's Petition was ... The Trustee also refers this court to In re A.G. Van Metre, Jr., Inc., 155 B.R. 118, 121 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1993); In re Grand Slam U.S.A., Inc., 178 B.R. 460, 461 (E.D.Mich.1995) ... ...
-
Potomac Shores, Inc. v. River Riders, Inc.
...that are defined as being in the center, or at the center of the channel, of a river. See, e.g., Louisiana v. Mississippi, 516 U.S. 22, 24–25, 116 S.Ct. 290, 133 L.Ed.2d 265 (1995); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 466 U.S. 96, 99, 104 S.Ct. 1645, 80 L.Ed.2d 74 (1984); Arkansas v. Tennessee, 397 U......
-
Severance v. Patterson
...that boundaries of property abutting waterways may shift with the movement of the water. See, e.g., Louisiana v. Mississippi, 516 U.S. 22, 25, 116 S.Ct. 290, 133 L.Ed.2d 265 (1995) (referring to the rule of "thalweg," which holds that a river boundary between states lies along the main down......