Ohio v. Kentucky
Headline: Court adopts Special Master’s report and fixes the geodetic boundary between Ohio and Kentucky, orders official filing of maps in state and county offices, and gives both states concurrent jurisdiction over the Ohio River.
Holding: The Court adopts the Special Master’s report, fixes the Ohio–Kentucky boundary as described in Joint Exhibit 30, directs filing of the maps in state and county offices, and gives both states concurrent Ohio River jurisdiction.
- Makes the Joint Exhibit 30 line the official Ohio–Kentucky boundary.
- Requires filing maps and report in state and county offices.
- Gives both states shared jurisdiction over the Ohio River.
Summary
Background
The State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Kentucky are the parties affected by this Decree. The Court received and filed the Special Master’s Report, which was submitted with Joint Exhibits on April 15, 1985. That Report includes a geodetic description of the boundary between the two states in Joint Exhibit 30, and the Court expressly adopted that Report and Exhibit as the basis for its order. The Decree directs that copies be filed with state officials and county recorders and clerks in specified counties in both Ohio and Kentucky.
Reasoning
The central action the Court took was to accept the Special Master’s factual and mapping work and to fix the boundary line between Ohio and Kentucky according to Joint Exhibit 30. To implement that fix, the Court ordered official filing of the Special Master’s Report and designated Joint Exhibits with the Clerk of the Court, the Ohio Auditor, the Kentucky Secretary of State, and county recording offices. The Decree also states that Ohio and Kentucky will have concurrent jurisdiction over the Ohio River and that the costs of the proceeding will be divided between the two states as the Special Master recommended.
Real world impact
This Decree makes the geodetic line in Joint Exhibit 30 the official boundary for practical and administrative purposes. State and county offices must receive and keep the maps and report, which will affect land records and local administration in the listed counties. Both states now share jurisdiction over the Ohio River, and the parties will split the costs as ordered by the Court.
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?