LOUISIANA v. MISSISSIPPI et al.
No. 121, Orig.
Decided October 31, 1995
Decree entered December 4,1995
DECREE
This cause having come on to be heard on the Report of the Special Master heretofore appointed by the Court, and the exceptions filed thereto, and having been argued by counsel for the several parties, and this Court having stated its conclusions in its opinion announced on October 31, 1995, ante, p. 22, and having considered the positions of the respective parties as to the terms of the decree, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The boundary between the State of Louisiana and the State of Mississippi along the Mississippi River between North Latitude 32° 49' 25" and North Latitude 32° 44' lies along the line described as follows:
Beginning at Pt. 1 at North Latitude 32° 49' 25" and West Longitude 91° 09' 27"; thence to Pt. 2, Latitude 32° 49' and Longitude 91° 09' 34"; thence to Pt. 3, Latitude 32° 49' 47" and Longitude 91° 09' 37"; thence to Pt. 4, Latitude 32° 48' 30" and Longitude 91° 09' 39"; thence to Pt. 5, Latitude 32° 48' and Longitude 91° 09' 47"; thence to Pt. 6, Latitude 32° 47' 18" and Longitude 91° 09' 51"; thence to Pt. 7, Latitude 32° 47' 6" and Longitude 91° 09' 54"; thence to Pt. 8, Latitude 32° 47' and Longitude 91° 09' 59"; thence to Pt. 9, Latitude 32° 46' 50" and Longitude 91° 10' 7"; thence to Pt. 10, Latitude 32° 46' 35" and Longitude 91° 10' 14"; thence to Pt. 11, Latitude 32° 46' 20" and Longitude 91° 10' 16"; thence to Pt. 12, Latitude 32° 46' and Longitude 91° 10' 18"; thence to Pt. 13, Latitude 32° 45' 45" and Longitude 91° 10' 20"; thence to Pt. 14, Latitude 32° 45' 30" and Longitude 91° 10' 18"; thence to Pt. 15, Latitude 32° 45' 15" and Longitude 91° 10' 12"; thence to Pt. 16, Latitude 32° 45' and Longitude 91° 10' 01"; thence to Pt. 17, Latitude 32° 44' 45" and Longitude 91° 09' 49"; thence to Pt. 18, Latitude 32° 44' 30" and Longitude 91° 09' 38"; thence to Pt. 19, Latitude 32° 44' 23" and Longitude 91° 09' 30"; thence to Pt. 20, Latitude 32° 44' 15" and Longitude 91° 09' 18"; thence to Pt. 21, Latitude 32° 44' 07" and Longitude 91° 09'; thence to Pt. 22, Latitude 32° 44' and Longitude 91° 08' 44".
2. The State of Louisiana’s prayer that the claim of title by defendants Julia Donelson Houston, et al., in and to the lands and water bottoms lying between the Mississippi River on the east and the Louisiana-Mississippi boundary line as fixed in the preceding paragraph on the west be canceled and forever held for naught is DENIED.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
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.