Borden Ranch Partnership v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 · Property

Propertyequally divided Courtper curiamaffirmedno majority opinioncertiorari

Facts

The provided opinion contains no statement of underlying facts. It identifies the parties as Borden Ranch Partnership et al. and the United States Army Corps of Engineers et al. The case was before the Supreme Court on certiorari from the Ninth Circuit. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Issue

The per curiam opinion does not state the substantive legal issue presented. The only issue resolved in the opinion text is the disposition of the case before an equally divided Court.

Rule

When the Supreme Court is equally divided, the judgment under review is affirmed without an opinion establishing a precedential rule on the merits.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz lost in the Colorado Supreme Court and sought certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. After argument, one Justice did not participate, and the remaining Justices split 4-4.

What is the most accurate disposition of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court?

Explanation. The governing rule from the per curiam disposition is procedural only: when the Supreme Court is equally divided, the judgment under review is affirmed. The Court does not issue a majority opinion establishing a merits rule. That is the only doctrinal point established by the opinion text.