Norton v. Whiteside
Citations
- 239 U.S. 144
- 36 S. Ct. 97
- 60 L. Ed. 186
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1475
Syllabus
<p>A mere formal statement in the bill to the effect that the cause of action is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States does not suffice to give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals under § 241, Jud. Code— it must appear that the suit really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of some law of the United States upon the determination whereof the result depends. Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712.</p> <p>Riparian rights attaching to property patented by the United States ' are determined by the law of the State in which the land is situated. • Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371.</p> <p>The fact that both parties owning parcels of real estate bordering on a navigable boundary river opposite to each other acquired the property froni the United States does not change or affect the rule . that riparian rights of the parties are to be determined by the law of the respective States in which the properties are situated.</p> <p>The provisions in the various ordinances and statutes relating to the organization of the Northwest Territory reférred to in the bill in this case do not control the riparian rights enjoyed, under the law of the State wherein'the property is situated, by parties who acquired the land from the United States within the limits of a State carved out of such Territory.</p> <p>Averments in a bill as to the general intent of .Congress to preserve free navigation of the rivers within the Northwest Territory are unavailing to give jurisdiction to this court to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a case otherwise made final by § 128, Jud. Code, in the absence of any specific legislation of Congress influencing the determination of an asserted Federal question in regard to riparian rights.</p> <p>The mere fact that Congress directed the improvement of a new channel in a navigable river does not destroy riparian rights existing
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that “as to the claim of riparian rights on the navigable waters in question it was long since affirmatively settled that such claim solely involves a question of state law”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
87 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSupreme Court· 1933-04-10· cited 405×
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Toledo, Peoria & Western RailroadSupreme Court· 1944-01-17· cited 208×
- Somali Development Bank v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1974-12-18· cited 139×
- Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of AmericaThird Circuit· 1948-02-10· cited 66×
- J.P. Furlong Enterprises, Inc. v. Sun Exploration & Production Co.North Dakota Supreme Court· 1988-04-18· cited 39×
- Minnesota v. WisconsinSupreme Court· 1920-03-08· cited 30×
- State Land Board v. SAUSEOregon Supreme Court· 1959-07-01· cited 25×
- South Covington & Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. City of NewportSupreme Court· 1922-05-15· cited 24×
- Bulluck v. WashingtonD.C. Circuit· 1972-01-19· cited 21×
- Deere v. St. Lawrence River Power Co.Second Circuit· 1929-05-06· cited 15×
- Troche v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1929-12-09· cited 14×
- Omaha Indian Tribe v. WilsonEighth Circuit· 1980-01-15· cited 11×
- Yamhill Electric Co. v. McMinnvilleSupreme Court· 1930-01-20· cited 9×
- Julia E. Duke v. Gene Durfee and Laura Durfee, Gene Durfee and Laura Durfee v. Julia E. DukeEighth Circuit· 1962-10-11· cited 6×
- Moore v. RoneMissouri Court of Appeals· 1962-03-16· cited 6×
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc.Supreme Court· 1928-10-29· cited 5×
- Gandy v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co.Supreme Court· 1929-10-28· cited 4×
- Louisiana ex rel. Duggan v. CrandellSupreme Court· 1920-11-15· cited 3×
- Phillips v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1927-10-24· cited 3×
- Draxton v. FitchSupreme Court· 1927-10-31· cited 3×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Shulthis v. McDougalSupreme Court· 1912-06-07· cited 424×
- Hardin v. JordanSupreme Court· 1891-05-11· cited 381×
- Barney v. KeokukSupreme Court· 1877-04-23· cited 297×
- Shoshone Mining Co. v. RutterSupreme Court· 1900-04-30· cited 175×
- Hall v. BurrSupreme Court· 1914-06-22· cited 149×
- Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1900-01-08· cited 90×
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad v. ButlerSupreme Court· 1895-06-03· cited 49×
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. BellSupreme Court· 1900-02-26· cited 45×
- Roman Catholic Church of St. Anthony of Padua v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court· 1915-06-01· cited 35×
Other cases named Norton v. Whiteside
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.