Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

No. 130, Orig., New Hampshire v. Maine

By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//

No. 130, Orig., New Hampshire v. Maine

By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

“New Hampshire’s claim that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore is clearly inconsistent with its interpretation of the words ‘Middle of the River’ during the 1970’s litigation… [I]nterpretation of those words was ‘necessary’ to fixing the northern endpoint of the lateral marine boundary, Report 43. New Hampshire offered two interpretations in the earlier proceeding – first agreeing with Maine in the proposed consent decree that ‘Middle of the River’ means the middle of the main channel of navigation, and later agreeing with the Special Master that the words mean the geographic middle of the river. Both constructions located the ‘Middle of the River’ somewhere other than the Maine shore of the Piscataqua River.

“[W]e conclude that judicial estoppel bars New Hampshire from asserting that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore.”

Dismissed.

Local Effect:

The decision is consistent with current Seventh Circuit law, set forth in Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services, Inc. v. Born, 238 F.3d 853 (7th Cir.2001).

Ginsburg, J.

Original Action.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests