UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA et al. (LOUISIANA BOUNDARY CASE)
No. 9,
Orig.
Decided March 17, 1975, and April 28, 1980
Decree entered March 17, 1975
Supplemental decree entered June 16, 1975
Final decree entered June 22, 1981
Order entered June 1, 1982.
ORDER
Pursuant to this Court’s Final Decree herein entered on June 22, 1981, 452 U. S. 726, the United States and the State of Louisiana filed their Final Accountings, and, subsequently, each party filed Objections to the Accounting of the other. By an Order entered on January 11, 1982, 454 U. S. 1135, the Court referred the said Objections to its Special Master. The parties have now agreed upon these matters, have submitted to the Special Master a proposed Order, and the Special Master, with the concurrence of both parties, has recommended its entry by the Court.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed:
1. The Final Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
2. The objections to accountings previously filed are sustained to the extent recommended in the Report of the Special Master.
3. All accountings required by the Court’s Decree of June 22, 1981, have been made and, as supplemented by the ruling on the objections thereto, are now approved.
4. The United States is directed forthwith to pay over to the State of Louisiana the outstanding sum of $3,251,609.76.
5. After the payment directed by paragraph 4 above, neither party shall be accountable to the other for any further payment in respect of the matters in controversy in these proceedings between the United States and the State of Louisiana.
6. Upon receipt by the State of Louisiana of the payment directed by paragraph 4, above, the Interim Agreement of October 12,1956, shall be deemed terminated for all purposes and all sums remaining in the impounded fund account established pursuant to that Agreement are unconditionally released to the United States.
7. The account submitted by the Special Master is approved and the balance owing to him shall be paid in equal shares by the United States and the State of Louisiana.
8. The Special Master is discharged in this case insofar as the proceedings involve the controversy between the United States and the State of Louisiana.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
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.