State v. McIlroy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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
- Kaiser Aetna v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Lamprey v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Harrison v. FiteCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Niles v. Cedar Point ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.