Document: 420 U.S. 304 95 S.Ct. 1153 43 L.Ed.2d 211 State of UTAH, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES. No. 31, Orig. Supreme Court the United States February 19, 1975 Danny Julian Boggs, Bowling Green, Ky., for defendant. Richard L. Dewsnup, Salt Lake City, Utah, plaintiff. On Bill Complaint. PER CURIAM AND DECREE. We heard oral argument upon exceptions to Report Special Master filed by States. 419 814, 29, 42 40 (1974). overrule and adopt, direct entry of, decree proposed except that, as agreed parties, paragraph 1 is modified in form revising phrasing opening read follows: '1. Subject any federal regulatory authority that may extend Great or its shorelands, America, departments agencies, are enjoined from asserting against Utah claim right, title interest:' Further, Finding Fact 10 adjusted, inserting 4200.8 lieu 4200.2, 396,000 325,000. For purpose giving effect above, following hereby entered. It ordered, adjudged, recreed that: interest: '(a) exposed shorelands situated between edge waters on June 15, 1967, bed January 4, 1896, when became a State, with exception lands within Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Weber Basin reclamation project; '(b) natural resources living organisms beneath delineated (a) above; '(c) either Lake, extracted therefrom, above. '2. The not required pay States, through Secretary Interior, including minerals, above this decree. '3. There remains question whether meander line (as duly surveyed prior accordance section Act 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192), conveyed quitclaim deed included federally owned uplands date statehood (January 1896) which still conveyance Utah.* In absence agreement parties disposing necessity further proceedings respect thereto, directed hold such hearings, take evidence, conduct he deems appropriate and, due course, report his recommendations Court. '4. prayer America answer Utah's Complaint 'confirm, declare establish owner all interest described Section 2 192, amended August 23, 349, without lands, save right have these it them, provisions amended,' denied.' so ordered. Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part consideration decision case. * As appears p. 4 Master's reserved their position question.

Category: 9