California v. Nevada
Headline: Fixes California–Nevada border through Lake Tahoe, adopts Special Master’s survey, declares the Lake Tahoe intersection the official meridian/parallel point, and orders the states to share related expenses.
Holding:
- Fixes the official California–Nevada boundary through Lake Tahoe for maps, law, and property.
- Declares the Lake Tahoe intersection the official 120th meridian/39th parallel angle point.
- Orders the states to share Special Master expenses and return unspent funds proportionally.
Summary
Background
The States of California and Nevada asked the Court to finalize their shared boundary. The Court received and filed the Special Master’s report and applied an earlier opinion (June 10, 1980) plus a parties’ stipulation from February 5, 1982. The decree traces the boundary from an 1872 wood post set by Allexey W. Von Schmidt, along surveyed markers including Von Schmidt Milepost 191, to brass and granite survey markers and a granite Monument No. 1 in Lake Tahoe.
Reasoning
The core question was where the true boundary line runs and whether the intersection in Lake Tahoe counts as the constitutional point where the 120th meridian meets the 39th parallel. The Court adopted the Special Master’s description of bearings, distances, and geographic positions (based on the 1927 North American Datum) and specified the surveyed line and the single angle point in Lake Tahoe as the official boundary position. The decree also addresses costs, directing that necessary Special Master expenses be shared equally and that other expenses be borne by each state.
Real world impact
The decision fixes an exact, official boundary line for maps, property, and government action between the two states in and around Lake Tahoe. It identifies the Lake Tahoe intersection as the operative meridian/parallel angle point named in the states’ constitutions. The order also resolves who pays for the Special Master’s work and returns any unspent contributions proportionally.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?