Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. McIlroy

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 17, 1980No. 79-320Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJohn A. Fogleman, Chief Justice

I cannot join in the court’s new definition of navigability, even though I concur in the reversal of the decree in this case. My disagreement is based upon the court’s departure from two overriding and interrelated legal principles, i.e., the effect of a rule of property and the vesting of property rights.

Never before in Arkansas, has determining the navigability of a stream been essentially a matter of deciding if the water is public or private property. Quite the reverse — the rights of riparian owners have depended upon the test of navigability. Although it may be rather loosely said that…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Kaiser Aetna v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Lamprey v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  4. Harrison v. FiteCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
  5. Niles v. Cedar Point ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1899

45 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