Page 1 of 1

Recent Court of Appeals decision regarding water boundaries

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:20 am
by PE_PLS
I've attached a recent decision regarding water boundary rights in Bethel Island, part of the Sacramento Delta. I read about it in this morning's newspaper, a link to the article is here:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14317925

The argument between the two parties is who owned the overlap of the extension of the property lines on the ground as they extend into the water since the shoreline was curved. Both parties claimed they owned the right angle extension off the shoreline. The Court of Appeals ruled that the overlap be split equally between parties. This seems obvious to me but apparently it wasn't because this dispute took 11 years to resolve. Too bad the plaintiff died in the middle of the battle, he didn't get to savor the victory.

thanks for the case

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:27 pm
by dmi
I happen to notice
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS right at the top of the page.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:07 pm
by Ian Wilson
Roger that, Dane!

However, even though the Court does not want this decision to set precedence, it does point to the current thought process from the bench. There are citations in the decision and reasoning that can be employed without citing this case.

The statement under NOT TO BE PUBLISHED... reads:

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

8.1115(b) reads:

Exceptions

An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on:

(1)When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or

(2)When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action.

.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:06 pm
by dmi
Thanks for the clarification, Ian. I have to admit that the Knerr v Mauldin, while I believe it was unpublished, is certainly usefully instructive.

Thanks for the post.

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:46 am
by Sunburned_Surveyor
I work with water boundaries in the Delta a lot, so this case is particularly interesting to me. Thanks for posting it Dylan.

The Sunburned Surveyor (PLS 8489)