New Hampshire v. Maine

434 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 42, 54 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 4011
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 3, 1977
Docket64 ORIG
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 434 U.S. 1 (New Hampshire v. Maine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
New Hampshire v. Maine, 434 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 42, 54 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 4011 (1977).

Opinion

DECREE

The joint motion for entry of a final decree is granted.

It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows:

1. The Report of the Special Master is hereby approved, and the motion for entry of judgment by consent of plaintiff and defendant is granted.

2. This judgment determines the lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine from the inner Portsmouth Harbor to the breakwater at the end of the inner Gosport Harbor in the Isles of Shoals.

3. The Order of the King in Council of April 9, 1740, in pertinent part, provided:

“And as to the Northern Boundary between the said Provinces, the Court Resolve and Determine, That the Dividing Line shall pass up thro the Mouth of Piscataqua *2 Harbour and up the Middle of the River into the River of Newichwannock (part of which is now called Salmon Falls) and thro the Middle of the same to the furthest Head thereof and from thence North two Degrees Westerly until One Hundred and Twenty Miles be finished from the Mouth of Piscataqua Harbour aforesaid or until it meets with His Majestys other Governments And That the Dividing Line shall part the Isles of Shoals and run thro the Middle of the Harbour between the Islands to the Sea on the Southerly Side; and that the Southwesterly part of the said Islands shall lye in and be accounted part of the Province of New Hampshire And that the North Easterly part thereof shall lye in, and be accounted part of the Province of the Massachusets Bay and be held and enjoyed by the said Provinces respectively in the same manner as they now do and have heretofore held and enjoyed the same . . .

4. The terms “Middle of the River” and “Middle of the Harbour,” as used in the above-quoted Order, mean the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River and the middle of the main channel of navigation o-f Gosport Harbor.

5. The middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River, commencing in the vicinity of Fort Point, New Hampshire, and Fishing Island, Maine, proceeding southward, is as indicated by the range lights located in the vicinity of Pepperrell Cove, Kittery Point, Maine, and it follows the range line as marked on the Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973.

6. The main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River terminates at a point whose position is latitude 43°02/42.5// North and longitude 70°42/06// West. Said point has a computed bearing of 194°44'47.47" true and a computed distance of 1,554.45 metres (1,700 yards) from the Whaleback Lighthouse, No. 19, USCG-158, whose position is latitude *3 43°03'31.213" North and longitude 70°41/48.515// West (reference National Geodetic Survey).

7. The middle of the main channel of navigation of Gosport Harbor passes through a point indicated by the bottom of the BW “IS” Bell Buoy symbol as shown on Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973. The position of this point is latitude 42°58/51.6" North and longitude 70o37'17.5" West as scaled from the above-described chart.

8. The main channel of navigation of Gosport Harbor terminates at a point whose position is latitude 42°58/55" North and longitude 70°37/39.5" West. Said point has a computed bearing of 394°08/52.81" true and a computed distance of 1,674.39 metres (1,831 yards) from the Isles of Shoals Lighthouse, No. 20, USCG-158, whose position is latitude 42o58'01.710" North and longitude 70°37/25.590,/ West (reference National Geodetic Survey).

9. The lateral marine boundary between New Hampshire and Maine connecting the channel termination points described in paragraphs (6) and (8) above has been determined on the basis of the “special circumstances” exception to Article 12 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (15 U. S. Treaties 1608) and of the location of the Isles of Shoals which were divided between the two States in their colonial grants and charters.

10. The lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine connecting the channel termination points described above is the arc of a great circle (appears as a straight line on a Mercator projection) whose computed length is 9,257.89 metres (10,124.53 yards).

11. The lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine from the Piscataqua River channel termination point proceeds toward Gosport Harbor channel termination point on a computed bearing of 139°20/27.22" true.

12. The lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine from the Gosport Harbor channel termination *4 point proceeds toward Piscataqua River channel termination point on a computed bearing of 319°17'25.43" true.

13. All positions in the preceding paragraphs are referred to the North American Datum of 1927.

14. The boundary line delimited hereinabove is depicted by a heavy black line with the words “Maine” and “New Hampshire” above and below that line on the Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973, filed with the Motion for Entry of Judgment by Consent.

15. The State of Maine, its officers, agents, representatives and citizens, are perpetually enjoined from disputing the sovereignty, jurisdiction and dominion of New Hampshire over the area adjudged to her by this decree; and the State of New Hampshire, its officers, agents, representatives and citizens, are perpetually enjoined from disputing the sovereignty, jurisdiction and dominion of Maine over the area adjudged to her by this decree.

16. The costs of this action shall be equally divided between the two States, and this case is retained on the docket for further orders, in fulfillment of the provisions of this decree.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Daniels v. Alphabet Inc.
N.D. California, 2023
Thomas v. Warden, NHSP
2012 DNH 058 (D. New Hampshire, 2012)
Joseph Corcoran v. Bill Wilson
Seventh Circuit, 2008
Amatucci v. Hamilton, et al.
2007 DNH 126 (D. New Hampshire, 2007)
Heghmann v. Rye, N H , et al.
2005 DNH 045 (D. New Hampshire, 2005)
New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Michaud v. Delkner, et al.
2000 DNH 059 (D. New Hampshire, 2000)
Rogers v. Marino, et al.
D. New Hampshire, 1998
Provencher v. CVS Pharmacy
D. New Hampshire, 1997
Lago & Sons Dairy v. H.P. Hood
D. New Hampshire, 1995
Canino v. Londres
862 F. Supp. 685 (D. New Hampshire, 1994)
Turgeon v. Cunningham
D. New Hampshire, 1994
Move Organization v. United States Department of Justice
555 F. Supp. 684 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
Ohio v. Kentucky
444 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Citizens to Save Spencer County v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Alabama Power Company, American Petroleum Institute, Sierra Club, Bf Goodrich Company, American Paper Institute, Hoosier Energy Division, Mountain Fuel Supply Company, Montana Power Co., Natural Resources Council of Maine, Pittston Co., Intervenors. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Power Co., Intervenors. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Bf Goodrich Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Hampton Roads Energy Company v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Montana Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Pittston Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., Intervenors. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, the Pittston Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, American Paper Institute and the National Forest Products Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Manufacturing Chemists Association, Chemical Products Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Fmc Corporation, Monsanto Company, Ppg Industries, Inc., Rohm and Haas Company, Stauffer Chemical Company, Union Carbide Corporation, Allied Chemical Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Alabama By-Products Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Koppers Company, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of Epa, Usm Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Epa
600 F.2d 844 (D.C. Circuit, 1979)
Haberman v. Tobin
466 F. Supp. 447 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Amoson v. State
246 S.E.2d 502 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Common Cause v. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission
377 A.2d 643 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 42, 54 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 4011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-hampshire-v-maine-scotus-1977.