ARKANSAS v. TENNESSEE
No. 33,
Orig.
Decided February 25, 1970
Decree entered February 25, 1970
Opinion reported: Ante, p. 88.
DECREE
1. It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the boundary line between the States of Arkansas and Tennessee in the area in controversy shall be fixed in the middle of the old abandoned Cow Island Bendway Channel as partially reflected in the 1953 survey of one R. L. Cooper (Defendant’s Exhibit 42, attached to the decree in Brown v. Brakensiek, in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee), said abandoned channel extending from its upper or up-river end to the lower or down-river end of Ike Chute as far as that survey goes, thence downstream in a southerly direction passing down the middle of a water drain or creek now running between the lower end of Ike Chute and the upper end of 96 Chute, thence continuing downstream in a southerly direction down the middle of 96 Chute and coming out of 96 Chute on a continuing straight line to the point where it joins the present navigation channel of the Mississippi River, all as indicated by a broken line marked “State Line” on the annexed reduced copy of the 1965 aerial photograph of the area in controversy, Joint Exhibit A, marked Appendix A-I, and also as reflected by a broken line marked “State Line” on a reduced copy of Defendant’s Exhibit 39, the 1937 map of the United States Engineers and hereto annexed as Appendix A-II.
2. It is ordered that the Hon. Gunnar H. Nordbye be, and he is hereby, appointed Commissioner in this case with power to engage and supervise a competent surveyor, or surveyors, to survey the boundary line as provided in this decree. The boundary line determined by such survey shall be submitted to the Court by the Commissioner and, if approved, shall be the boundary line between the two States.
3. The costs of this proceeding shall be divided equally between the parties.
[Appendixes A-I and A-II follow this page.]
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.