http://www.oyez.org/issues/interstate-relations/boundary-dispute/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_33_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_73_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_37/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_74_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_106_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_121_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_14_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_86_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_30_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_48_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_48_orig_2/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_11_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_17_orig/ <p>Is New Hampshire's original suit against Maine, which disputes the Piscataqua River boundary, barred by earlier proceedings?</p><p>Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that "judicial estoppel bars New Hampshire from asserting that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore." Under the judicial estoppel doctrine, "[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him," wrote Justice Ginsburg. "New Hampshire's claim that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore is clearly inconsistent with its interpretation of the words 'Middle of the River' during the 1970's litigation," concluded Ginsburg.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_130_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_64_orig/ <p>Are the filled portions on Jersey's Side of Ellis Island under the sovereign authority of the State of New York or the State of New Jersey?</p><p>The Court held that the 1834 compact between the two states, although granting New York sovereignty over Ellis Island, did not support an inference that any portions added to the island's New Jersey side would also belong to New York. The lack of meets and bounds descriptions in the compact indicated that it merely applied to Ellis Island as it existed in 1834, and did not contemplate ownership of expanded portions. Moreover, the Court noted that under the common law doctrine of avulsion, sudden shoreline changes have no effect on boundaries. Thus, since New Jersey had sovereignty over previously submerged portions of Ellis Island, it would retain such sovereignty when these portions were filled until raised above the water line on its side of the Island.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_120_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_27_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_27_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_36_orig/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_36_orig/