Hughes v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentHill, J.
(dissenting) — I find myself lost in admiration at the scholarship and erudition manifested in the majority opinion. However, all the legal signposts that I can read and understand point in the opposite direction, so I am compelled to dissent.
We must decide whether the westerly (seaward) boundary of Stella Hughes’ property is the present mean high tide line, or whether it is the line of ordinary high tide as the state of Washington computes it to have been on November 11, 1889. It is really as simple as that.
Signpost 1: Location of plaintiff’s westerly (seaward) boundary is a federal question.
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Eisenbach v. HatfieldWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Miguel Moran Ramirez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- Ferry v. County of KingWashington Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.