Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Application of Ashford

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1968No. 4516Published

1Dissent

*318DISSENTING OPINION OF

MARUMOTO, J.

I am constrained to dissent. This decision is one that will “count for the future.”1 Its effect will not be limited to the case at hand. So long as it remains unaltered as the last word of this court on the subject, it will control the determination of the seaward boundary of every parcel of unregistered private land in this State in which the title document describes the seaward boundary as being “along the sea”; and, also, the determination of the seaward boundary of every parcel of private land built up by accretion to registered land and the seaward…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Eichelberger v. Mills Land & Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
  3. Spreckels v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  4. Territory of Hawaii v. LiliuokalaniHawaii Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Haalelea v. MontgomeryHawaii Supreme Court · 1858

4 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