Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
Translate
▼
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
I'm not sure how many of you are following this or are even aware of it, but you may want to think about implications if Montana prevails in this case.
MT to PPL-"You owe us 95 years worth of rent for the riverbed"
Posted : February 9, 2012 9:44 pm
Translate
▼
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
See Gavit's Adm'rs v. Chambers, 3 Ohio 495 for the first-ever analysis of the topic.
Posted : February 9, 2012 11:53 pm
Translate
▼
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
Interesting case Mark, thanks for posting. My dealings with navigability issues have always centered around commerce use at the time of statehood. I definitely will keep an eye on this as it could be a real game changer. Washington State DNR tries to assert bed ownership based on post-statehood commerce but haven't as yet tried to adjudicate any rights/ownership.
Doug
Posted : February 10, 2012 12:31 am