CALIFORNIA v. NEVADA
No. 73,
Orig.
Decided June 10, 1980
Decree entered June 1, 1982
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
DECREE
For the purpose of giving effect to the opinion of this Court announced on June 10, 1980, 447 U. S. 125, and the stipulation of the parties entered into on February 5, 1982, and approved by the Special Master:
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed As Follows:
1. That the location of the boundary between the States of California and Nevada is as hereafter specified:
Beginning at the Initial Point on the California-Nevada boundary as established under authority of the Act of June 10, 1872,17 Stat. 358, by Allexey W. Von Schmidt in 1872 as an eight (8) inch square wood post set in a large mound of stone at the intersection to the 42nd parallel of north latitude along the southern boundary of the State of Oregon and the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, each as reported by him; thence running southerly along said 1872 boundary as surveyed and marked by Allexey W. Von Schmidt to a cast iron monument designated as Von Schmidt Milepost 191 on said boundary; thence S 00°09'15".21 W along a line directed toward a standard National Geodetic Survey brass marker cemented in a granite formation and stamped “VS 120, 1981”, located at the geographic position of: Latitude 38°53'51".59866 Longitude 120°00'20".93116, a distance of 80,191.63 feet to an intersection in Lake Tahoe with a line extending between two points, the first of which is a standard National Geodetic Survey brass marker cemented in granite and stamped “EAGLE ROCK, 1981,” which has a geographic position of: Latitude 39°06'33". 17268, Longitude 120°09'38".06504, and the second being a granite stone with copper bolt identified as No. 1 (Initial 1894), being the first monumented point on the California-Nevada Oblique 1893-1899 Boundary survey as determined and marked by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey; thence from said intersection point in Lake Tahoe S 48°46'02".80 E, 21,568.48 feet to said Monument No. 1 (Initial 1894); thence proceeding southeasterly along the oblique California-Nevada boundary line as surveyed and marked by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey under authority of the Act of August 5,1892, 27 Stat. 357, during the period 1893-1899, to Point No. 1 described in the Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California executed on March 12, 1963, being a point common to Point No. 1 described in the Interstate Compact Defining A Portion of the Arizona-Nevada Boundary On The Colorado River, executed February 6, 1960. Bearings, distances, and geographic positions used hereinbefore are based upon the 1927 North American Datum and are denoted on the attached map, Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the intersection of the two lines described herein shall form the only angle point of the true California-Nevada state boundary within the waters of Lake Tahoe, which angle point shall be considered as satisfying the definition of the intersection of the 120th meridian west of Greenwich with the 39th parallel of north latitude as prescribed in the constitutions of California and Nevada.
3. That the necessary expenses incurred by the Special Master incident to this litigation and all other proper expenses incurred jointly by the parties shall be equally borne by the parties.
4. That, except as provided in paragraph 3 herein, each party shall bear its own expenses.
5. That any unexpended funds contributed by the parties to the Special Master for necessary expenses be returned to the parties in proportion to their contributions.
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.