Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

The State Of New Jersey, Complainants Vs. The People Of The State On New York, Defendants

1830 • 28 U.S. 461 • Marshall Court
The State of New Jersey brought a case against the People of the State of New York in front of the United States Supreme Court. The dispute was over ownership and jurisdiction rights to Ellis Island, which lies between both states. New Jersey argued that it had owned and exercised control over Ellis Island since before 1664 when it became part of their state boundaries. On the other hand, New York claimed that they had acquired title to all islands within its harbor by virtue of an act passed...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1830
28 U.S. 461
7 L. Ed. 741
1830 U.S. LEXIS 552

The State Of New Jersey, Complainants Vs. The People Of The State On New York, Defendants

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The State of New Jersey brought a case against the People of the State of New York in front of the United States Supreme Court. The dispute was over ownership and jurisdiction rights to Ellis Island, which lies between both states. New Jersey argued that it had owned and exercised control over Ellis Island since before 1664 when it became part of their state boundaries. On the other hand, New York claimed that they had acquired title to all islands within its harbor by virtue of an act passed in 1774 granting them sovereignty over any land not previously granted or reserved for public use. After much deliberation, including review from historical documents such as maps and charters from colonial times, The US Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of New Jersey's claim due to evidence showing that they were indeed exercising authority long before 1774 when this Act was passed by NY legislature.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of The State of New Jersey v. The People of the State of New York, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had exclusive authority to regulate navigable waters between two states and thus could not be regulated by either state alone. He further stated that if one state attempted to do so, it would amount to an unconstitutional infringement on the other's sovereignty. Furthermore, he asserted that any attempt by one state to control or limit navigation on such waters was invalid as it violated both federal law and interstate compacts established under Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of the Constitution. In conclusion, Justice Story concluded that neither party should have been granted relief from their respective claims since they were both attempting to exercise powers beyond those allowed them under federal law and constitutional provisions.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms