Supreme Court of the United States, 1928

New Mexico v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 9, 1928 · Sanford

276 U.S. 557; 48 S. Ct. 437; 72 L. Ed. 698; 1928 U.S. LEXIS 99 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. J. Harry Covington submitted the petition for rehearing, on behalf of the complainant., Mr. W. A. Keeling, Attorney General of Texas, with whom Messrs. John C. Wall, Wallace Hawkins, Assistant Attorneys General, and W. W. Turney were on the briefs, for defendant.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

Crawford v. White (Tex. App. 1930)
Pedro Rodriguez-Fernandez v. George C. Wilkinson, Warden (10th Cir. 1981)
Hyland v. Millers Nat. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1937)
Lomartira v. American Automobile Insurance (2d Cir. 1967)
Lomartira v. American Automobile Insurance Company (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1965)
Transportation Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation v. Opal M. Hamilton, Doing Business as Opal M. Hamilton Fashions (10th Cir. 1963)
United States v. Florida (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
Morgan v. Badger Mutual Insurance (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1960)
United States v. Louisiana (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
United States v. Florida (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. P. W. Herron (4th Cir. 1959)
American Paint Service, Inc. v. The Home Insurance Company Of New York (3d Cir. 1957)
American Paint Service, Inc. v. Home Insurance (3d Cir. 1957)
In re Giacobbi (District Court, N.D. New York 1939)
United Firemen's Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Jose Rivera Soler & Co. (1st Cir. 1936)
New Mexico v. Texas (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
General Motors Co. v. Swan Carburetor Co. (6th Cir. 1930)
Caranica v. Nagle (9th Cir. 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Justice Sanford.

A petition for rehearing has been presented by the State of New Mexico, which we think must be denied. But it points to an error in our opinion announced December 5, 1927, which, while not affecting the ultimate decision, requires correction. The petition invites special attention to some evidence which shows that the statements made in the opinion to the effect that the State of Texas and the United States had prior to 1912 recognized and acquiesced in the line of the Rio Grande River as it was located in 1850, as the boundary between the Territory of New Mexico and Texas, without reference to subsequent changes by accretion, are not accurate, and, with the observations based on them, should be recalled. The order will be that the fifth paragraph of that portion of the opinion under the heading “Accretions” and the *558first part of the next paragraph down to and including the words “ in its own Constitution,” be stricken from the opinion, and the following substituted:

New Mexico, when admitted as a State in 1912, explicitly declared in its Constitution that its boundary ran “ along said thirty-second parallel to the Rio Grande . . . as it existed on the ninth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty; thence, following the main channel of said river, as it existed on the ninth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty, to the parallel of thirty-one degrees, forty-seven minutes north latitude.” This was confirmed by the United States by admitting New Mexico as a State with the line thus described as its boundary; and Texas has also affirmed the same by its pleadings in this cause.

Opinion modified; rehearing denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.