Court Opinion

ID: 9579988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:00:37.509722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:56.731279
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring.
I am not sure we are reversing more than the semantics of the trial court’s holding. While the trial court may have overstated the breadth of the State’s ownership in the shore zone to be “absolute title,” I do not read the *545majority opinion as disagreeing with the trial court’s holding that Mills has only riparian rights to the shore zone. Whatever those riparian rights entitle Mills to will have to await a case-by-ease disclosure, but whatever it is, it must be decided in the context of the State’s sovereign duty to hold the shore zone in trust for the public. While I concur in the opinion, and I believe we have dutifully counted the angels on the pin, we have left both parties in limbo to speculate over what their “correlative” rights are and probably to dream the impossible dream about the parameters of those rights.