In re Forbes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that federal common law of land accretion already existed in the course of deciding that federal common law, rather than state law, would supply a rule of decision
• noting that federal common law of land accretion already existed in the course of deciding that federal common law, rather than state law, would supply a rule of decision
• refusing to follow California law in part because “this is not a case in which federal common law must be cre ated”
• “Section 5(a) of the Act [43 U.S.C. § 1313(a)], however, withheld from the grant to the States all ‘accretions’ to coastal lands acquired or reserved by the United States.”
• “It may be determined as a matter of choice of law that, although federal law should govern a given question, state law should be borrowed and applied as the federal rule for deciding the substantive issues at hand.”
• “California does not contend that ... the United States is estopped from asserting its claim to ownership of the disputed land.... Such an argument is foreclosed by United States v. Californi a....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).