United States v. Fred Cline & Wife, Luzene Cline, 344 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Fred Cline & Wife, Luzene Cline, 344 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Fred CLINE and Wife, Luzene Cline, Appellants
9724_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 14, 1965.
344 F.2d 954
Herbert L. Hyde, Asheville, N. C. (Van Winkle, Walton, Buck & Wall, Asheville, N. C., on brief), for appellants., A. Donald Mileur, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Attorney, Dept, of Justice, and William Medford, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Sobeloff, Boreman, Bryan.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

On remand, United States v. Cline, 307 F.2d 282 (4 Cir., 1962), the District Judge heard, and has appraised, the historical and expert evidence in exacting detail. He has found that “To the extent, if at all, that the Clines occupy property which would not be flooded by water at the elevation of 1837.41 they are trespassers upon the lands of the United States * * He gives with clarity the evidential support for his conclusions. The decision was purely a factual resolution of complex and conflicting proof and, certainly, it cannot be said to be “clearly erroneous”. We affirm on the basis of the District Judge’s ascertainments and analysis. United States v. Cline, 225 F.Supp. 488 (D.C.N.C., 1964). *

Affirmed.

*

The degree of proof required of the United States to establish its ownership or boundary claim was, of course, no greater than a preponderance of the evidence; the evidence did not have to amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as for a criminal conviction.