TENNESSEE v. ARKANSAS
No. 77,
Orig.
Decree entered December 14, 1981
DECREE
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.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.