43 U.S.C. § 1301
DESIGNATION.
“The Salt-Gila Aqueduct of the Central Arizona Project, constructed, operated, and maintained under section 301(a)(7) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1521(a)(7)), hereafter shall be known and designated as the ‘Fannin-McFarland Aqueduct’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 215
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1997).
United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1997). “29 , 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq. That Act "confirmed" and "established" States' title to and interest in "lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States.”
Oregon Ex Rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (1977). “[4] Arizona, in its brief, also relied upon the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 . However, as discussed in Bonelli, the Submerged Lands Act did not alter the scope or effect of the equal-footing doctrine, nor did it alter state property law regarding riparian…”
United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139 (1965). “2 [ 43 U. S. C. § 1301 ]. When used in this Act "(a) The term `lands beneath navigable waters' means .”
California Ex Rel. State Lands Comm'n v. United States, 457 U.S. 273 (1982). “29 , 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., California became vested with absolute title to the tidelands and the submerged lands upon which, after construction of the jetties, alluvion was deposited, resulting in formation of the subject land.”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987). “29 , as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp.”
Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997). “But the plurality's analysis in Treasure Salvors was not so limited, and noted that the plaintiff salvage company claimed that Florida state officials lacked authority to retain treasure recovered from the sunken galleon because the galleon had been found on submerged land…”
Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983). “[6] Until today, the Court too has shown special sensitivity to the importance of these lands, recognizing the strongest presumption that Congress will not act to convey the lands rather than to preserve them for the State.”
United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32 (1978). “29 , 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., subsequently transferred dominion over them to California.”
Plains Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors Inc., 473 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2015). “2008) (citing 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 , 1331(a), 1332). 3 In the wake of legal action challenging the scope of the CZMA, Congress amended the statute in 1990 to require the federal government to make a determination as to consistency with a state’s coastal management plan and to…”
Francis Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et, 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013). “See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 (a), 1331(a). 4 Case: 12-20150 Document: 00512132708 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 No.”
Alaska v. United States, 545 U.S. 75 (2005). “29 , 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., which applies to Alaska through an express provision of the Alaska Statehood Act (ASA), § 6(m), 72 Stat.”
United States v. Louisiana, 446 U.S. 253 (1980). “29 , 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., passed May 22, 1953, came in response to these rulings.”
— 43 U.S.C. § 1301(e) — 1 case
State v. Bundrant, 546 P.2d 530 (Alaska 1976).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.