State of Kansas v. State of Missouri

Decision Date23 October 1950
Docket NumberO,No. 8,8
Citation71 S.Ct. 86,95 L.Ed. 628,340 U.S. 859
PartiesSTATE OF KANSAS, complainant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI. riginal
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General of Kansas, for complainant.

Messrs. T. E. Taylor, Attorney General of Missouri, and Frank W. Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.

Upon consideration of the joint motion of counsel for the parties in this case to amend the decree of this Court, 322 U.S. 654, 64 S.Ct. 1202, 88 L.Ed. 1525, it is ordered that the joint motion be, and it is hereby, granted and the decree is amended to read as follows:

'This cause was argued by counsel at the October Term, 1943, upon the pleadings and exceptions to the Report of the Special Master. On June 5, 1944, this Court entered a decree establishing a boundary between the States. Since the entry of the decree the States of Kansas and Missouri through their legislatures have agreed upon a boundary and such agreement has been ratified by joint resolution of the Congress of the United States and the resolution approved by the President of the United States. Public Law 637, approved August 3, 1950. Therefore, in order to conform this Court's decree to the agreement of the parties as ratified by the Congress of the United States.

'It is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that the boundary line between the States of Kansas and Missouri, which extends from the intersection of the Missouri River with the 40th parallel, north latitude, southward to the middle of the mouth of the Kaw or Kansas River, be and it is hereby established as the middle line of the main navigable channel of the Missouri River as said river flows throughout its entire course from its intersection with the 40th parallel, north latitude, southward to the middle of the mouth of the Kaw or Kansas River, subject only to changes which may occur by the natural processes of accretion and reliction, but not by avulsion.

'The costs of this suit are equally divided between the two States, Complainant and Defendant.'

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • E.E.O.C. v. Townley Engineering & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 19, 1988
    ... ... exercise of a religious belief; (2) the existence of a compelling state interest justifying the burden imposed upon the exercise of the religious ... Murphy v. Missouri 814 F.2d 1252 (8th state prison yes ... Dep't of ... ...
  • United States v. Spock
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • July 11, 1969
    ... ... 419, 19 L.Ed.2d 508; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 1964, 378 U.S. 500, 512-514, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992; Shelton v ... ...
  • Toussie v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1970
    ...99, 92 L.Ed. 373 (1947); Gara v. United States, 178 F.2d 38, 40 (C.A.6th Cir. 1949), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 340 U.S. 857, 71 S.Ct. 87, 95 L.Ed. 628 (1950); McGregor v. United States, 206 F.2d 583 (C.A.4th Cir. 1953); cf. United States v. Guertler, 147 F.2d 796 (C.A.2d Cir. 1945)......
  • Holdridge v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 31, 1960
    ... ... provides that the trial of a crime "shall be held in the State where * * * committed". The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused "the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT