DOCSLIB.ORG

State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination Peter N

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination Peter N Nebraska Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 4 1978 State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination Peter N. Davis University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Peter N. Davis, State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 665 (1978) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol57/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. By Peter N. Davis* State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters-A Summary and Reexamination I. INTRODUCTION States rely on state ownership of the beds of streams, rivers, and lakes for various regulatory and proprietary purposes. These include licensing of bed use, leasing of underlying miner- al rights, protection of public use rights, assertion of public trust powers, and location of boundaries of abutting privately-owned land. The extent of this state ownership in states created from federal territories is determined by a conjunction of the follow- ing: (1) the "equal footing rule," (2) the law of federal land patent interpretation, (3) state rules on incidents to title to abutting uplands, (4) federal and state definitions of navigability, and (5) the law of implied grants of land from the sovereign. States have asserted title to the beds of many streams, rivers, and lakes by assuming the correctness of certain interpretations of these rules of law. This article will reexamine those interpretations. This reexamination is timely for two reasons. First, there is no clear authority on the question whether states created from federal territories have title to the beds of inland waters de- clared to be nonnavigable under federal law for bed title pur- poses. Second, the basic structure of bed title law itself was thrown into question in 1973 by a decision of the United States Supreme Court.1 The Court corrected its position in 1977 and restored the former bed title law. 2 This article will summarize the basic structure of bed title law and will examine its current status under the recent Supreme Court decisions. It will then analyze the cases to determine the location of title of beds of * Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia. B.A. 1959, Haverford College; LL.B. 1963, University of Wisconsin; S.J.D. 1972, Uni- versity of Wisconsin-Madison. 1. Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 313 (1973). 2. Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (1977). 666 NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW-VOL. 57, NO. 3 (1978) federally nonnavigable inland waters when a state created from a federal territory asserts such title. II. SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF BED OWNERSHIP A. Equal Footing Doctrine The common law recognized that title to beds of navigable 3 4 waters was in the Crown, both in England and in the colonies. At that time navigable waters were defined as those affected by the ebb and flow of the tide.5 The thirteen original states ac- quired title6 to the beds of navigable waters as successors to the Crown. The United States acquired title to the beds of navigable waters of federal territories because it was the territorial sovereign prior to the creation of new states.7 Territorial sovereignty was the origin of all bed titles in the Midwestern and Western states, including Nebraska. The United States held title to such beds in trust for the future states to be created out of the federal territories. 8 It also held title to the beds of nonnavigable waters incident to its proprietorship of the public domain be- 3. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 11-13,57 (1894); Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) *367, *410 (1842). 4. Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U.S. 65, 85-86 (1926); Morris v. United States, 174 U.S. 196, 226-27 (1899); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48-49, 57 (1894); Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) *367, *410 (1842). 5. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 11, 57 (1894); Packer v. Bird, 137 U.S. 661, 667 (1891); Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324, 337 (1876) (dictum). 6. See Borax Consol. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 15, rehearingdenied, 296 U.S. 664 (1935); Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U.S. 65, 86,89 (1926); Morris v. United States, 174 U.S. 196, 226-27 (1899); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 15-18, 49, 57 (1894); Knight v. United States Land Ass'n, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Mumford v. Wardwell, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 423, 436 (1867); Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) *367, *410, *416 (1842). See also Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 313, 317-18 (1973) (title was not acquired at time of ratification of the federal Constitution as the Court indicates, but at the time of the Revolution). 7. See Borax Consol. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 15, rehearing denied, 296 U.S. 664 (1935); United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 25 (1935); Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 77, 87 (1922); Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 583 (1922); Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 259 (1913); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48-49, 57 (1894); Knight v. United States Land Ass'n, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Weber v. Board of Harbor Comm'rs, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 57, 65 (1873). 8. Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 373 (1977); United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 58-59 (1926); United States v. Mission Rock Co., 189 U.S. 391, 404 (1903); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 49-50, 57 (1894); Knight v. United States Land Ass'n, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Weber v. Board of Harbor Comm'rs, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 57, 65 (1873). BED OWNERSHIP cause such bed titles were incidents to title in the abutting up- lands under the common law.9 When new states were created from federal territories and admitted to the Union, they were admitted on an equal basis with the thirteen original states. This is the so-called "equal footing rule"'10 mandated by the federal Constitution.1 The new states acquired title to the beds of navigable waters upon admis- sion to the Union because the thirteen original states held such title.12 Only title to the beds of waters navigable at the time of 9. See United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1935); Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 595-96 (1922); Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 383-84 (1891). 10. The term "equal footing" is derived from language appearing in the compact between the original states and the people and states within the Northwest Territory as enacted in the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 51, 53 n.(a) (1845). Article V provides: "[Sluch State shall be admitted... into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever. ." Id. at lxii. Similar "equal footing" language also appears in subsequent acts establishing ter- ritories and in acts of admission. The equal footing rule applies only to new states which were created out of federal territories. Therefore, the rule has no application in the thirteen original states, in their derivatives (Maine and West Virginia), in states which formerly were independent nations (Hawaii and Texas), or in pres- ent federal territories (District of Columbia). 11. Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd.v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 374 (1977). See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3. 12. See Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) *212, *223, *229-30 (1845); Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 50 U.S. (9 How.) *471, *478 (1850); Mumford v. Wardwell, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 423,436 (1867); Weber v. Board of Harbor Comm'rs, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 57, 65-66 (1873); Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324, 338 (1876); Knight v. United States Land Ass'n, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 434 (1892); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 26-28, 57 (1894); St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Comm'rs, 168 U.S. 349, 358-60, 365 (1897); Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 187 U.S. 479, 483 (1903); United States v. Mission Rock Co., 189 U.S. 391,404-05 (1903); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 209 U.S. 447, 451 (1908); Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 242-43 (1913); Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 259-60 (1913); Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Wash. R.R., 255 U.S. 56, 63 (1921); Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 583 (1922); Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 77, 83 (1922); United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55 (1926); United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64,75 (1931); United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 6, 14 (1935); Borax Consol. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oklahoma Statutes Title 12. Civil Procedure
    OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 12. CIVIL PROCEDURE §12-1. Title of chapter...........................................................................................................................30 §12-2. Force of common law.................................................................................................................30 §12-3. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-4. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-5. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-6. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-7. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-8. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-9. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................31 §12-10. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 §12-11. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 §12-12. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31
    [Show full text]
  • Commissioner Richard B. Long Chair, UUDDA/UUDA Drafting Committee
    Memo to: Commissioner Richard B. Long Chair, UUDDA/UUDA Drafting Committee From: Joe Colquitt Reporter Date: September 24, 2015 Apart from a few routine tweaks, at the close of our meeting there were three issues to be addressed. I have spent considerable time researching, reading and deciding how to address the issues raised. Here are my suggestions: ISSUE 1: Question: How can a statute overrule a constitutional provision? That is a good question with an easy answer. It cannot. Thus, as explained below, I have tweaked the language in § 2(2) and left § 4(a) intact. Why the question? Section 2(2) defines “law” to include “the federal or a state constitution, a federal or state statute, a judicial decision or order, a rule of court, an executive order, and an administrative rule, regulation, or order.” Section 4(a) states that with limited exceptions, “if a law of this state requires or permits use of a sworn declaration, an unsworn declaration meeting the requirements of this [act] has the same effect as a sworn declaration.” Assume the enacting state’s constitution required all declarations used in adoption proceedings be under oath or sworn (any law to the contrary notwithstanding). Applying Section 4(a), the “law [i.e., “state constitution” – § 2(2)] of the state requires use of a sworn declaration,” yet 4(a) establishes that an unsworn declaration “has the same effect as a sworn declaration.” Ergo, the [act] trumps the state constitutional provision. But, of course, it cannot; thus, the provision is defective and declarations for adoption proceedings would need to be under oath as required by the state constitutional mandate.
    [Show full text]
  • ONG VUE, Petitioner
    No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ONG VUE, Petitioner V. FRANK X. HENKE, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; ERNEST E. HAYNES, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; MICHAEL W. ROACH, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; DIANNE B. OWENS, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; ADAM LUCK, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; JOHN HOLDER, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; KEVIN J. GROSS, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; DELYNN FUDGE, Executive Director, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board; THOMAS GILLERT, Chairperson of the Pardon and Parole Board; ROBERT MACY, Pardon and Parole Board Member; C. ALLEN McCALL, Pardon and Parole Board Member; MICHAEL STEELE, Pardon and Parole Board Member; ROBERTA FULLERTON, Pardon and Parole Board Member; MELISSA L. BLANTON, Pardon and Parole Staff Attorney Respondents On 'Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Ong Vue DOC#26488 1 Pro se Litigant Dick Conner Correctional Center 129 Conner Road Hominy, Oklahoma 74035 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Petitioner Vue "failed to state a claim" is in contrary to the holding of Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), where Petitioner Vue, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, challenges the constitutionality of the Oklahoma state parole procedures on constitutional and statutory grounds. Whether Petitioner Vue's 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim on the crucial distinction between I judicial review of substantive agency decisions and judicial review of the agency's compliance with the substantive requirements of Oklahoma Statutes title 57, § 332.7 (Supp.
    [Show full text]
  • 215227952.Pdf
    THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR IN THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE OF OKLAHOMA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION BY RAYMOND E*"CLEVELAND NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 1967 SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR IN THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE OF OKLAHOMA APPROVED BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer would like to take this opportunity to express his appreciation to the many individuals who rendered assistance in this undertaking. In particular my gratitude ta Dr. Herbert R. Hengst as Major Professor and Committee Chairman for his patient and helpful guidance in the preparation of this report. Also to the other mem­ bers of the committee: Dr. James G. Harlow, Dr. Robert E. Ohm, and Dr. Joseph E. Pray. In addition, a vote of thanks to Dr. Freeman McKee, President of Murray State College and to Joan Kimbrough, Secretary to the Deans, for giving so generously of their time and assistance in this study. And to my wife. Ginger, sons, Mark, John, Greg, and Jeff, and to daughter, Val, to whom this effort is dedicated for their steadfast encouragement and moral support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWI£DGEMENTS ............................... ill Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 The Concept of Discipline, Back­ ground and P u r p o s e ........... ...... 1 Statement of Problem............... 13 Delimitation of the Study......... 14 Definition of Terms................. 15 P r o c e d u r e ......................... 15 S u m m a r y ....................
    [Show full text]
  • IN the IOWA SUPREME COURT No. 18-1280
    IN THE IOWA SUPREME COURT No. 18-1280 ______________________________________________________________ JOSHUA VENCKUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF IOWA CITY; ANDREW RICH; JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; ANNE LAHEY; NAEDA ELLIOTT; and DANA CHRISTIANSEN, Defendants-Appellants. ______________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY THE HONORABLE CHAD KEPROS, JUDGE ______________________________________________________________ FINAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CITY OF IOWA CITY AND ANDREW RICH ______________________________________________________________ Eric Goers Susan Dulek Assistant City Attorneys 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF IOWA CITY AND ANDREW RICH ELECTRONICALLY FILED JAN 16, 2019 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. 5 ROUTING STATEMENT .................................................................................... 17 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................. 17 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .......................................................................... 20 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 22 I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DISMISS VENCKUS’S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM WAS SUPPORTED
    [Show full text]
  • Probate Estates In
    PROBATE ESTATES IN: TEXAS OKLAHOMA LOUISIANA OKLAHOMA CITY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL LANDMEN Oklahoma City, Oklahoma October 4, 2004 George A. Snell, III Attorney at Law Herring Bank Building 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 508 Amarillo, TX 79109 (806) 359-8611 (806) 359-1274 FAX [email protected] Timothy C. Dowd Richard W. Revels, Jr. Elias, Books, Brown, Peterson & Massad Liskow & Lewis 211 North Robinson, Suite 1300 822 Harding Street Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7114 P. O. Box 52008 (405) 235-1551 Lafayette, LA 70505-2008 (405) 235-1572 FAX (337) 232-7424 [email protected] (337) 267-2399 FAX [email protected] Copyright © 1996 by George A. Snell, III, Timothy C. Dowd and Richard W. Revels, Jr. INTRODUCTION The authors attempt herein to summarize the estate procedures of Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, and to point out the significant differences between said procedures. DISCLAIMER The purpose of this article is to provide general principles of probate procedure and its impact upon the mineral estate. All of the subjects discussed herein could be and likely have been discussed in much greater detail in other articles or legal treatises. This article is intended only to provide these principles in a summary form so that a division order analyst may review these principles prior to interpreting instruments that may or may not convey a mineral or royalty interest. This article is not intended to give specific legal advice! While the authors have sought to draw together statutory and case law from numerous jurisdictions, the law is subject to many exceptions or variations from general principles, depending on the precise fact situation.
    [Show full text]
  • British Statutes in American Jurisdictions 197
    December, 1929 BRITISH STATUITES IN AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS FREDERICKI G. MCKEAN, JR. The abstraction called the Law is a magic mirror wherein we see reflected not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been.-Attributed to Mr. Jus- tice Holmes. It has been said that man differs from other animals chiefly in this: that he retains in each generation that which has been handed down by its predecessor,, and, after applying the touchstone of experience, passes it to his successors. This commonplace has been phrased in the folk saying, "Experience is the best teacher", and in the legal aphorism that "the life of the law has been-experi- ence". An outstanding characteristic of the founding of this re- public was the tenacity with which our forefathers clung to their inheritance of the laws which their immigrant ancestors brought into the New World and adapted to the requirements of changed environment. John Adams is credited with the statement that he would not have taken the stand that he did in the War for Inde- pendence, if such action had involved the loss of the common law. Chief Justice Taft says, "We embodied in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution the principles of the British Constitution as they had. been established at the Common Law."' At the threshold of the Revolution the American Continental Congress of 1774, under the presidency of George Washington, adopted this resolution: "Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more espe- cially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.
    [Show full text]
  • New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: a Chronological Review Richard V
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 1 Article 2 Issue 2 Spring 1970 1970 New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: A Chronological Review Richard V. Carpenter Prof. of Law, Hastings University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons Recommended Citation Richard V. Carpenter, New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: A Chronological Review, 1 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 187 (1970). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol1/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Volume 1, Number 2, Summer 1970 New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: A Chronological Review Richaid V. Carpenter* Around the turn of the century a Texas switchman named Slater was killed in Mexico due to the negligence of his employer, a Colorado corporation which operated a railroad from Texas to Mexico City. The switchman's widow and children, all citizens and residents of Texas, brought a diversity action in the federal court in Texas against the railroad for damages. On appeal, the Supreme Court, in Slater v. Mexican National R.R. Co.,' held that the Mexican remedy, support and pensions during necessity or until marriage, was beyond the power of the Federal courts to grant. The trial court attempted to substitute a common law remedy in the form of lump sum damages based on a jury verdict but on appeal the judgment was reversed and the action ordered dismissed.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Contests
    CHAPTER 9 Election Contests A. In General § 1. Constitutional Provisions; Historical Background § 2. Contested Election Laws § 3. State or Local Election Boards B. Jurisdiction and Powers § 4. The House § 5. Election Committees § 6. The Clerk; Transmittal of Papers § 7. The Courts C. Grounds of Contest § 8. Generally § 9. Faulty Credentials; Citizenship § 10. Violation of Federal or State Election Laws § 11. Improper Attempts to Influence or Confuse Voters § 12. Voting Booth and Balloting Irregularities D. Defenses § 13. Generally § 14. Contestant’s Credentials and Qualifications § 15. Abatement § 16. Limitations and Laches E. Practice and Procedure § 17. Alternatives to Statutory Election Contests § 18. Commencing the Contest Commentary and editing by John Theodore Fee, J.D. 963 Ch. 9 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS § 19. Parties F. Notice of Contest § 20. Generally; Time § 21. Service of Notice § 22. Form and Contents of Notice G. Pleading § 23. Generally § 24. Answer § 25. Motion to Dismiss § 26. Motion for More Definite Statement H. Taking of Testimony; Depositions § 27. Generally; Time § 28. Examination of Parties and Witnesses § 29. Scope of Examination; Objections § 30. Subpenas § 31. Affidavits I. Committee Hearing and Review; Dismissal and With- drawal § 32. Generally; Preparation of Briefs § 33. Dismissal and Withdrawal of Contest J. Evidence § 34. Generally § 35. Burden of Proof § 36. Presumptions § 37. Ballots § 38. Determination of Voter Intention K. Inspection and Recount of Ballots § 39. Generally § 40. Grounds 964 ELECTION CONTESTS Ch. 9 § 41. Procedure L. Disposition of Contests; Resolutions § 42. Generally § 43. Committee Reports § 44. Form of Resolutions § 45. Costs and Expenses; Compensation and Allow- ances M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931–72 § 46.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Law in the United States Gregory E
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 38 | Issue 6 Article 1 1-1987 Choice of Law in the United States Gregory E. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gregory E. Smith, Choice of Law in the United States, 38 Hastings L.J. 1041 (1987). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol38/iss6/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Choice of Law in the United States by GREGORY E. SMITH* Perhaps no legal subject has caused more consternation and confu- sion among the bench and bar than choice of law.1 Much of the bewil- derment is attributable to the fact that the modern choice of law era did not begin until approximately 1963.2 Since then, courts have struggled mightily to come to grips with various modern choice of law theories put forth by conflicts scholars. The decisions in any given jurisdiction are often decidedly, perhaps wildly, inconsistent. Added to this is the fact that published conflicts decisions are quite rare. Although conflicts cases arise at the trial level fairly often, many years may pass before a court of 3 last resort is called upon to resolve a difficult choice of law problem. Thus, confounded judges are left to grapple with a smattering of irrecon- cilable and sometimes incomprehensive precedents. It is no small won- der that many judges have dreaded seeing choice of law cases on their dockets.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma City University Law Review
    OCULREV Vol. 41-3 Winter 2016 Burke 337--423 (Do Not Delete) 4/28/2017 2:00 PM OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 41 WINTER 2016 NUMBER 3 ARTICLE THE EVOLUTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW IN OKLAHOMA: IS THE GRAND BARGAIN STILL ALIVE? Bob Burke I. INTRODUCTION The concept of compensating injured workers for work-related accidents is not new. As early as 2050 B.C., the law of the city-state of Ur in the Fertile Crescent provided for payment for injuries to specific parts of the body.1 “Ancient Greek, Roman, Arab, and Chinese law” allowed a J.D., Oklahoma City University School of Law; B.A., Journalism, University of Oklahoma; Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters, Oklahoma City University; Fellow, The College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers; assisted in writing changes to Oklahoma workers’ compensation law, 1977 to 2011; rewrote entire Workers’ Compensation Code, 2011; member, Oklahoma Advisory Council on Workers’ Compensation, 1994 to 2011; Oklahoma Secretary of Commerce in administration of Governor David Boren; managed Boren’s first campaign for U.S. Senate, 1978; chair, Legal Committee, Fallin Commission for Workers’ Compensation Reform, 1994 to 1998; member, Oklahoma Bar Association Judicial Elections Committee, 2016; represented 16,000 injured workers since 1980. All conclusions are those of the author. 1. Gregory P. Guyton, A Brief History of Workers’ Compensation, 19 IOWA ORTHOPAEDIC J., 1999, at 106, 106 (1999). Guyton, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, authored an excellent overview of the workers’ compensation system in the United States 337 OCULREV Vol. 41-3 Winter 2016 Burke 337--423 (Do Not Delete) 4/28/2017 2:00 PM 338 Oklahoma City University Law Review [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Competency, Privileges, Witnesses, Opinion, and Expert Witnesses
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 1978 An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Competency, Privileges, Witnesses, Opinion, and Expert Witnesses Walker J. Blakey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Walker J. Blakey, An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Competency, Privileges, Witnesses, Opinion, and Expert Witnesses, 14 Tulsa L. J. 227 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blakey: An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Compete TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 14 1978 Number 2 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OKLAHOMA EVIDENCE CODE: RELEVANCY, COMPETENCY, PRIVILEGES, WITNESSES, OPINION, AND EXPERT WITNESSESt Walker J. Blakey* I. INTRODUCTION-A FEW WORDS OF PRAISE AND EXPLANATION ............................................. 233 A. The Need ForAn Evidence Code ..................... 233 B. The Oklahoma Evidence Code Is Based Upon the Fed- eralRules of Evidence ................................ 233 C. The Code Is a Clearerand Improved but Incomplete Re- statement of FamiliarLaw ............................ 236 t This article is the first in a series to be published in the Tulsa Law Journal which will comprehensively examine the Oklahoma Evidence Code in its entirety. This article draws upon the author's work for the Institute on the Oklahoma Evidence Code sponsored by the Oklahoma Bar Association Commission on Continuing Legal Education, upon work on a proposal for rules of evidence for North Carolina which was supported by the North Carolina Law Center, and upon work on a book tentatively titled An Introduction To The FederalRules of Evidence.
    [Show full text]