UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA
No. 5,
Orig.
Decided June 23, 1947, May 17, 1965, May 15, 1978, and June 9, 1980
Order and decree entered October 27, 1947
Supplemental decree entered January 31, 1966
Second supplemental decree entered June 13, 1977
Third supplemental decree entered November 27, 1978
Fourth supplemental decree entered January 19, 1981
FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Decree of October 27, 1947 (332 U. S. 804), and the Supplemental Decrees heretofore entered in this cause on January 31, 1966 (382 U. S. 448), June 13, 1977 (432 U. S. 40), and November 27, 1978 (439 U. S. 30), be, and the same hereby are further supplemented as follows:
1. The inland waters of the Port of San Pedro include those waters enclosed by a straight line from the eastern end of the Long Beach breakwater (NOS Chart 18749, 33°43'23'' N., 118°08'10'' W.) to the seaward end of the east jetty of Anaheim Bay (NOS Chart 18749, 33°43'36" N., 118°05'57'' W.).
2. The inland waters of San Diego Bay are those enclosed by a straight line from the seaward end of Point Loma (NOS Chart 18772, 32°39'46" N., 117°14'29" W.) to the point at which the line of mean lower low water intersects with the southern seaward end of the entire Zuniga jetty (NOS Chart 18772, 32°40'00.5" N., 117°13'19" W.).
3. The following artificial structures do not form part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the federal-state boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq.:
a. The Sharp Beach pier (NOS Chart 18685, 37°38'00" N., 122°29'41" W.);
b. The Morro Strand pier (NOS Chart 18703, 35°24'-38.4" N., 120°52'31.9" W.);
c. The Port Orford pier (NOS Chart 18721, 34°28'09.6" N., 120°13'38.8" W.);
d. The Ellwood pier (NOS Chart 18721, 34°25'39" N., 119°55'20" W.) ;
e. The Santa Barbara Biltmore Hotel pier (NOS Chart 18725, 34°24'59.4" N., 119°38'30" W.);
f. The Carpintería pier (NOS Chart 18725, 34°23'06" N., 119°30'4.6" W.);
g. The Punta Gorda causeway and Rincon Island (NOS Chart 18725, 34°20'48.1" N., 119°26'39" W.);
h. The Venice pier (NOS Chart 18744, 30°59'06" N., 118°28'35" W.);
i. The Manhattan Beach pier (NOS Chart 18744, 33°-53'00" N., 118°24'48.2" W.);
j. The Hermosa Beach pier (NOS Chart 18744, 33°51'-40.2" N., 118°24'16.9" W.);
k. The Huntington Beach pier (NOS Chart 18740, 33°-09'14" N., 118°00'21" W.);
l. The Newport Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 33°36'-22.0" N., 117°55'49.6" W.);
m. The Balboa Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 33°35'54.4" N., 117°54'01.1" W.);
n. The Oceanside pier (NOS Chart 18740, 33°11'29.4" N., 117°23'18" W.);
o. The Ocean Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 32°44'-58.5" N., 117°15'30.5" W.); and
p. The Imperial Beach pier (NOS Chart 18772, 32°34'-46.6" N., 117°08'08.0" W.).
4. The parties having paid their own costs and having contributed equally to a fund for expenses of the Special Master, any amounts remaining in said fund after deduction of all expenses by the Special Master shall be divided equally and returned to each party by the Special Master.
5. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain 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.
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.