Arkansas v. Tennessee
Headline: Court fixes Arkansas–Tennessee boundary along the middle of the abandoned Cow Island Bendway Channel, appoints a commissioner to oversee a final survey, and orders the two states to share costs equally.
Holding:
- Establishes precise Arkansas–Tennessee boundary through the Cow Island Bendway Channel.
- Appoints a commissioner to oversee and submit a binding boundary survey.
- Requires the two states to split the costs of the proceeding equally.
Summary
Background
The dispute involves the States of Arkansas and Tennessee over the exact location of their boundary in the area described as "the area in controversy." The decree fixes the line in the middle of the old abandoned Cow Island Bendway Channel as reflected in a 1953 survey by R. L. Cooper and a 1937 United States Engineers map, and it refers to a 1965 aerial photograph (Joint Exhibit A) and Appendixes A-I and A-II.
Reasoning
The central question was where the state line should run through the contested waterways and chutes. The Court ordered that the boundary be fixed along the middle of the abandoned Cow Island Bendway Channel, continuing downstream through specified drains and 96 Chute to where it joins the present navigation channel. The Court appointed Gunnar H. Nordbye as Commissioner with authority to hire and supervise a competent surveyor or surveyors to survey the boundary as described. That survey must be submitted to the Court and, if the Court approves it, will be the official boundary. The decree also directs that the costs of the proceeding be divided equally between the two States.
Real world impact
This decree establishes a specific, court-ordered boundary line between Arkansas and Tennessee in the named area and creates a clear process to make that line final through a supervised survey. Once the Court approves the survey, the marked line will control which State’s boundary applies in that stretch. The appointment of a commissioner and the equal cost-sharing requirement set out how the order will be implemented and funded.
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?