Case_briefs - Martin v Lessee of Waddell Issue who has the right to submerged land and oyster fishery also what law was in effect Facts martin's

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Martin v. Lessee of Waddell Issue: who has the right to submerged land and oyster fishery, also what law was in effect? Facts: martin’s brother duke of York given land to start a new colony Holding: NJ (new) law applied Reasoning : was unfair to residents of they could not grow or prosper Shively v. Bowlby Issue: who owns the land and who gets to keep it? Facts : Shively’s land but did not develop it when given to him. Bowlby was given an incentive to get him to prevent erosion of the bay. Creates a marina and makes use of the land, at great personal expense. Reasoning: Brusco Towboat v. State of Oregon Issue: whether or not the state of Oregon can have the rent lease program without violated the rights of riparian owners . Facts: Oregon was going to make people enter a lease rent program for the submerged lands Make them get permits to build any permit structures on that land Holding: yes state has authority, but can't charge structures built previous to lease program Reasoning: state can do it but buildings that were already there don’t apply Phillips Petroleum Company v. Mississippi Issue: whether or not the state of Mississippi had title to the land Facts: Phillips could trace there ownership way back to the Spanish land grant -Paid taxes on land since that time -Only questioned when they wanted to start drilling Holding: would not let them drill Reasoning: because it was really state land under the new law. All that we know is afterwards they could have bought it back Borax Consolidated Ltd v. City of Los Angeles Issue: Facts: city of LA is bringing a suit of quite land tittle to claim land to be the tide land of Mormon island situated in the inner bay of San Pedro now LA Harbor Holding Reasoning: State v. Ibbison Issue: whether or not the defendant knew they were trespassing on private property Facts: know definition yet of the mean high tide line stated pacifically yet -Defendants where doing a beach clean up of seaweed Holding: did not now without a reasonable doubt where the mean high tide line was
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Reasoning: must prove that without a reasonable doubt the trespasser knew where the mean high tide line was . Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Issue: whether or not the gov’t has the power to give away that much of land without public concern Facts: RR wanted to build in Illinois and needed property -Public land given to RR (Chicago Harbor) -Over 1000 acres of submerges land -Legal bribery because towns competed for RRs -Living near the tracks = the future Holding : public trust doctrine Reasoning: gov’t did not have the power to give away the land because of the public use it could have. Ruled in favor of the gov’t of Illinois. Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp v. Commonwealth
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2008 for the course MAF 220 taught by Professor Nixon during the Spring '08 term at Rhode Island.

Page1 / 16

Case_briefs - Martin v Lessee of Waddell Issue who has the right to submerged land and oyster fishery also what law was in effect Facts martin's

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online