Document: 444 U.S. 206 100 S.Ct. 399 62 L.Ed.2d 365 Norman VAUGHN, Freddie Broussard and Larry J. Broussard, Petitioners,v.VERMILION CORPORATION. No. 77-1819. Dec. 4, 1979. John K. Hill, Jr., Lafayette, La., for petitioners. Harry McCall, New Orleans, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The legal principles stated today in our opinion Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 164, 383, 332, control the disposition of this case. Because its posture here, however, we find it necessary to remand case Court Appeal Louisiana. We think a brief statement facts proceedings below will be helpful an understanding disposition. 2 Respondent Vermilion Corp. leases substantial amount acreage, owned by Exxon Co., State land is traversed system manmade canals, which are approximately 60 feet wide 8 deep. canals both subject tidal fluctuations navigable fact. They were constructed with private funds, have been continuously possession respondent Corp., Exxon, their predecessors, long period time. 3 canal enters other naturally waterways, lies between Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on north Mexico south. used fishing hunting also oil gas exploration development activities. subleases portions hunters, trappers, fishers, right use part sublease agreement. 4 In order access over 400 "No Trespassing" signs posted various locations. employs people supervise activities land, numerous occasions such prohibited strangers from entering using property question. 5 present controversy arises out petitioners' insistence that notwithstanding Vermilion's rights, they entitled as matter federal law—without obtaining respondent's permission—to enter property, travel engage commercial shrimping Petitioners disregarded several written warnings issued respondent; then filed suit Louisiana state court seeking permanent injunctions against petitioners trespassing making canals.* 6 After commencement litigation, moved summary judgment, based affidavits deposition, pursuant appropriate article Code Civil Procedure. trial granted motion appealed Appeal. That affirmed. 356 So.2d 551. petition certiorari here sets forth two questions review. Pet. Cert. 5. first if citizen his privately held real funds creates artificial means diversion or destruction pre-existing natural waterway, does artificially developed waterway become "navigable waterways States" all citizens States? second whether channels built manner ultimately join similarly open States. difference obvious: posits process construction whereas not. adequately answers question presented review was correct determining no general public arose reason authority navigation conferred upon Congress Commerce Clause Art. I States Constitution. But even though occurred constructing result would different. so doing, relied Ilhenny 172 La. 895, 135 So. 669 (1931), decision Supreme Appeal, light decision, factual dispute litigants immaterial, judgment proper law. summarized these words: 7 "Defendants contend, there fact genuinely material litigation improper. claim plaintiff's destroyed navigability surrounding waterways. argue because, true, could conclude substituted If conclusion reached, not controlled under law." So.2d, at 553. While neither nor any principal cases deal specific situation, do can said law proved allegations proof constitute defense prayer injunctive relief court. 9 Accordingly, affirmed respect certiorari, vacated remanded further inconsistent decided today, 10 It ordered. 11 Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 12 Since involved entirely construction, applicability navigational servitude somewhat closer than 332. Nevertheless, reasons given my dissenting case, 180, S.Ct., 393, reverse 13 There fact, give Waterway, interstate plenary control. currently navigation. thus, waters States." 14 had condemned fast construct agree compensation required, although valuation include potential canal. Cf. Rands, 389 121, 88 265, 19 329 (1967). Government did initiate construction. Rather, predecessors interest voluntarily undertook transform into water purposes highway waterborne commerce. doing so, subjected former dominant surrendered canals. 15 As Aetna, hold free predominates, that, restrictions warranted, should accomplished through auspices Army Corps Engineers. inappropriate record decide review, answer obviates necessity reaching first. thus perceive need proceedings. * Third Circuit, only appellate render question, damages introduced court, prayed complaint, raised appeal

Category: 3