CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE LANDS COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES
No. 89,
Orig.
Decided June 18, 1982
Decree entered October 18, 1982
DECREE
For the purpose of giving effect to the decision of this Court herein, announced June 18, 1982, 457 U. S. 273, rehearing having been denied on September 9, 1982, 458 U. S. 1131,
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed:
1. As against the State of California and all those claiming under it, the United States holds all right, title and interest in the parcel of land described in the Complaint filed herein and in Exhibit A hereto, the seaward boundary of which shall be the line of mean high water of the Pacific Ocean, as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion or reliction, whether attributable to natural or artificial causes;
2. The State of California has no right, title or interest in the said parcel of land, and the State, its agencies, political subdivisions, officers and agents, and all those claiming under them or in privity with them, are enjoined from interfering in any way with the right, title, and interest of the United States in the said parcel;
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
EXHIBIT A
All that certain real property in the State of California, County of Humboldt situated in Townships 4 and 5 North, Range 1 West, Humboldt Base & Meridian (“HB&M”) and particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the east lU comer of Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 1 West HB&M, thence from said point of commencement; N 88°01'20" W, 1981.14 feet along the north line of U. S. Lot 3 of said Section 31, as said lot is shown on the official United States Government Township Plat, to the United States Meander Line of the Pacific Ocean as surveyed by J. S. Murray under contract dated October 18, 1854, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence from said true point of beginning southerly along the shore of the Pacific Ocean with the meander lines of said Section 31 the following (3) courses:
1. S 14°38'54" W, 395.44 feet;
2. S 03°38'54" W, 1863.84 feet; and
3. S 10°21'06" E, 400.10 feet; to the United States Meander Corner on the Township line common to said Townships 4 and 5 North Range 1 West; thence southerly along the shore of the Pacific Ocean with the meander lines of Section 6 of Township 4 North, Range 1 West as surveyed by J. H. Miller under contract dated October 19, 1854, the following (3) courses:
1. S 08°24'17" W, 968.24 feet;
2. S 01°24'17" W, 869.50 feet; and
3. S 11°35'43" E, 646.26 feet more or less to the centerline of the North Jetty at the entrance to Humboldt Bay; thence westerly along said centerline the following (6) courses:
1. N 75°15'58" W, 307.31 feet;
2. N 65°00'58" W, 431.97 feet;
3. N 52°05'24" W, 442.91 feet;
4. N 53°15'24" W, 408.72 feet;
5. N 50°02'05" W, 400.00 feet;
6. N 46°08'24" W, 1427 feet more or less to the line of mean high water of the Pacific Ocean; thence northerly along said line of mean high water to a point which bears N 88°01' 20" W, from the true point of beginning; thence S 88°01'20" E, along the north line of U. S. Lot 3, of Section 31 of Township 5 North, Range 1 West produced, to the true point of beginning.
Bearings and distances are based on the State of California Coordinate System (Lambert Conformal Projection), Zone 1, derived locally from that certain map entitled “Record of Survey, Surplus Property,” recorded in Book 29 of Surveys at Page 137, Humboldt County Records as surveyed by the United States Coast Guard; 12th District.
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.