COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ex rel. Robert F. STEPHENS, Attorney General, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and the United States of America, Respondents,
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc., Save the Valley-Save Marble Hill, State of Indiana, Intervenors.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued October 17, 1979.
Decided April 18, 1980.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
David K. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Kentucky, Frankfort, Ky., for petitioner.
William M. Shields, Atty., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, pro hac vice by special leave of Court, with whom Stephen F. Eilperin, Sol., Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Neil T. Proto, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for respondents.
Harry H. Voigt, Washington, D. C., with whom Michael F. McBride, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for intervenor, Public Service Co. of Indiana.
Thomas M. Datillo, Madison, Ind., was on the brief for intervenor, Save the Valley et al.
Michael Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind., was on the brief for intervenor, State of Indiana.
Also James A. Fitzgerald, Atty., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, James W. Moorman and Carl Strass, Attys., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for respondents.
Also Leonard M. Trosten and E. David Doane, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor, Public Service Co. of Indiana.
Before LEVENTHAL and ROBB, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Judge, United States Court of Claims.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM:
At issue in this case is the location of the boundary between the State of Indiana and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In the context of a licensing proceeding, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held that the 1792 low-water mark on the northwestern or Indiana side of the Ohio River is the border between the two states. Kentucky, however, contends that its jurisdiction extends to the present low-water mark on the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
