Subject: 1998 scotus ellis opinion in full<br/>
Date: May 13, 2003 @ 00:32<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next<br/>
<a href="10061.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10063.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-238877647"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www6.law.com/ny/links/ellis.html">http://www6.law.com/ny/links/ellis.html</a><br/>
some very interesting stuff here<br/>
& the conclusion directs further action before a final ruling<br/>
<br/>
we know the parties subsequently agreed on a few changes & submitted <br/>
them back to the special master<br/>
<br/>
but there the paper trail suddenly turns cold <br/>
circa january 2000<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
also<br/>
a review of the 1857 map suggests that the reported growth of the clave <br/>
area from under 3 acres to nearly 5 could have been due to the tidal <br/>
difference alone<br/>
with or without some misapprehension somewhere along the line<br/>
<br/>
& tide levels were an issue in the case<br/>
<br/>
but this may be just a simple coincidence of scale<br/>
rather than the true cause of a true change in size<br/>
which remains unknown if indeed there was any<br/>
reports to the contrary notwithstanding</div>