Illinois v. Kentucky
Headline: Court fixes Illinois–Kentucky boundary along the Ohio River, adopts Special Master’s report, orders costs split, and awards $114,708.16 in fees shared equally by both states.
Holding:
- Officially fixes the Illinois–Kentucky boundary along the Ohio River.
- Requires filing of maps and reports with state and county offices.
- Splits costs and requires both states to share the $114,708.16 fee.
Summary
Background
The case involves the State of Illinois and the Commonwealth of Kentucky resolving where their boundary lies along the Ohio River. The Special Master prepared a report with geodetic descriptions and maps labeled Joint Exhibits 3 through 26. The Court received and filed that report on December 2, 1994, adopted it as its own, granted the Special Master’s motion for compensation, awarded $114,708.16 to the Special Master to be paid equally by the two states, and discharged the Special Master.
Reasoning
The central task was to fix the boundary line between Illinois and Kentucky. The Court accepted the Special Master’s detailed geodetic description and incorporated Joint Exhibits 3 through 26 into its Decree. The Decree orders that copies of the Report and exhibits be filed with the Clerk of this Court, each state’s Secretary of State, and county clerks in specified Illinois and Kentucky counties. The Decree also declares that Illinois and Kentucky share concurrent jurisdiction over the Ohio River and directs that the parties divide the costs of the proceeding as recommended by the Special Master.
Real world impact
The ruling makes the boundary official using the Special Master’s geodetic descriptions and maps. State officials and local county clerks must receive and keep the Decree and exhibits. The two states must share the costs and split the Special Master’s fee, and the Special Master is released from further duties. This Decree creates a clear, court-ordered record of the boundary and related administrative steps.
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?