TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Michigan v. Wisconsin

Michigan v. Wisconsin, 272 U.S. 398 (1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 22, 1926
Docket
Nos. 9, Original
Judges
Sutherland
Citations
272 U.S. 39847 S. Ct. 11471 L. Ed. 3151926 U.S. LEXIS 9

Opinion — Sutherland

Decree announced by Mr. Justice Sutherland.

This cause having been heard and submitted upon certain questions, and the Court having considered the same and announced its conclusions in an opinion delivered March 1, 1926 ( 270 U. S. 295 ), Now for the purpose of carrying the said opinion into effect, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:

1. That the boundary between the States of Michigan and Wisconsin along the following course be and it is hereby fixed and finally established as follows:

From Lake Superior through the middle of the main channel of the Montreal River, to the headwaters thereof, as established in the survey of Captain Cram at the junction of the Pine River and Balsam Creek (also known as Lehman’s Creek), thence along the line of the survey of William A. Burt of 1847, to the center of the channel between Middle and South Islands in the Lake of the Desert, thence continuing along the line of said survey to the shore of Lake Brulé, thence along the southerly shore of Lake Brulé to the center of the main channel of the River Brulé, thence down the center of the main channel of the rivers Brulé and Menominee, to the center of the harbor entrance of said Menominee River, thence in,a direct line to the most usual ship channel' of Green Bay, passing.to the north of Green Island and.westerly *399 of Chambers Island and through the Rock Island Passage into Lake Michigan, by courses and distances as follows: From a point midway between the outer ends • of the Menominee River piers, thence east by south, seven and one-half miles to the center of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay, thence along said ship channel north by east one-eighth east, eight and seven-eighths miles, thence continuing along said ship channel north by east seven-eighths east, twenty-seven miles, thence continuing along said ship channel, east one-fourth north, ten and one-fourth miles, thence east three-fourths north to the boundary between the State of Michigan and the State of Wisconsin in the middle of-Lake Michigan. Provided, that the section of the boundary in the Brulé and Menominee rivers shall follow the main channel thereof, except that where islands occur in the Brulé River or in the Menominee River, down to and inclusive of the Quinnesec Falls, extending to the line between sections 5 and 6, Township 38 north, of Range 20 east, of the Wisconsin Public Survey, extended across said river, the line shall pass through the channel nearest the Wisconsin bank, so as to throw all such.islands into.Michigan; and where islands occur in the Menominee River below the Quinnesec Falls, the line shall pass through the channel nearest the Michigan bank, so as to throw all such islands into Wisconsin. Provided further, that the land known as “ Merryman’s Island,” being surveyed as part of sections 20 and 29, Township 36 north, of Range 28 west, of the Michigan Public Survey, and the land known as “ Sugar Island,” being a part of lots 1 and 2, Section 11, lot 6 of Section 2, and lot 1 of Section 3, Township 31 north, of Range 27 west, of the Michigan Public Survey, is determined to be part of the mainland of Michigan.

The costs of' this proceeding in this Court- shall be divided equally between the parties.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11933: 11935: 11936: 21938: 11939: 21978: 119322026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McIntosh v. Washington395 A.2d 744 (D.C. 1978)
  2. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hubbard22 F. Supp. 697 (S.D. Cal. 1938)
  3. TEXAS v. FLORIDA306 U.S. 398 (1939)
  4. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Wallace288 U.S. 249 (1933)
  5. Wisconsin v. Michigan295 U.S. 455 (1935)
  6. Clark's Ferry Bridge Co. v. Public Service Commission165 A. 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)

Most recent

  1. McIntosh v. Washington395 A.2d 744 (D.C. 1978)
  2. New Jersey Suburban Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners8 A.2d 350 (N.J. 1939)
  3. TEXAS v. FLORIDA306 U.S. 398 (1939)
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hubbard22 F. Supp. 697 (S.D. Cal. 1938)
  5. Harford v. Degenhart22 Ohio Law. Abs. 212 (1936)
  6. Wisconsin v. Michigan297 U.S. 547 (1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Michigan v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 295 (1926) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list