Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bell v. Town of Wells

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 30, 1989Published

1DissentWathen, Justice

I do not agree that public recreational rights in the Maine coast are confined strictly to “fishing,” “fowling,” and “navigation”, however “sympathetically generous” the interpretation of those terms might be. The Court concludes that the shoreowners have the unrestricted right to exclude any member of the public from the intertidal lands unless that person is engaged in fishing, fowling or navigation. That conclusion is premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Colonial Ordinance is the exclusive and preeminent source of all public rights. In fact, public rights in the intertidal lands…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Martin v. Lessee of WaddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
  4. Storer v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
  5. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API