opinion: MICHIGAN v. OHIO
  No. 30,
  Orig.
  Argued December 11, 1972
  Decided and Decree entered February 22, 1973
  Charles F. Keeley, Assistant Attorney General of Michigan, argued the cause for plaintiff on exceptions to the Report of the Special Master. With him on the brief were Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Jerome Maslowski, Assistant Attorney General.
  Charles S. Rawlings, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, argued the cause for defendant in answer to exceptions to the Report of the Special Master. With him on the brief was William J. Brown, Attorney General.
  Per Curiam and Decree.
  Upon consideration of the Report filed Nov. 9, 1971, by Senior Judge Albert B. Maris, Special Master, exceptions filed thereto, and argument thereon, it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:
  1. The exceptions filed by the State of Michigan to the report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled.
  2. The boundary line between the States of Ohio and Michigan in Lake Erie follows a line drawn from the point in Maume.e Bay where the north cape of that bay was located in 1836 on a course having a bearing North 46° East measured from a true meridian, passing over the center of the existing circular concrete seawall on Turtle Island and continuing on the same course through the lake to the point where it intersects the boundary line between the United States and Canada.
  3. In 1836 the north cape of Maumee Bay was located at the point in that bay where a line drawn North 87° 49' 44" East from Post 71 on the land boundary line between the States of Ohio and Michigan intersects a line drawn South 45° West from the center of the existing circular concrete seawall on Turtle Island, both bearings being measured from a true meridian.
  4. The costs of this suit, including the expenses of the Special Master, shall be borne by the State of Michigan.
choices: case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason