Arizona v. California, No. 8

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation383 U.S. 268,15 L.Ed.2d 743,86 S.Ct. 924
Decision Date28 February 1966
PartiesARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA et al. rig
Docket NumberO,No. 8

383 U.S. 268
86 S.Ct. 924
15 L.Ed.2d 743
ARIZONA

v.

CALIFORNIA et al.

No. 8, Orig.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 28, 1966

Mark Wilmer, for plaintiff.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Northcutt Ely, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Burton J. Gindler and David B. Stanton, Deputy Attys. Gen., C. Emerson Duncan II, Jerome C. Muys, Roy H. Mann, Earl Redwine, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox, James H. Carter, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., John H. Lauten, H. Kenneth Hutchinson, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Edward T. Butler, Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen. of Nevada, and Robert E. Jones, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants.

Solicitor General Marshall, for the United States.

ORDER.

Ordered.

The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757, is hereby granted and Article VI of said decree is hereby amended to read as follows:

VI. Within three years from the date of this decree [March 9, 1964], the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply simi-

Page 269

lar information, within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755), Docket Nos. 45381
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 5, 2019
    ...Arizona II ), 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona III ), 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966), and amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona V ), 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 19......
  • Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region, No. A124351.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2010
    ...[10 L.Ed.2d 542, 83 S.Ct. 1468]; Arizona v. California (1964) 376 U.S. 340 [11 L.Ed.2d 757, 84 S.Ct. 755]; Arizona v. California (1966) 383 U.S. 268 [15 L.Ed.2d 743, 86 S.Ct. 924]; Arizona v. California (1979) 439 U.S. 419 [58 L.Ed.2d 627, 99 S.Ct. 995]; Arizona v. California (1983) 460 U.S......
  • U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755), Docket Nos. 45381
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • September 5, 2019
    ...Arizona II ), 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona III ), 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966), and amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona V ), 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 19......
  • Lewis v. Sporck, No. C 84-20343 WAI.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • April 9, 1985
    ...1489 n. 85, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), decree entered, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended, Arizona v. California, 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966). The statement by Senator Tower, which also was not addressed by any of the conferees, is significant becau......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755), Docket Nos. 45381
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 5, 2019
    ...Arizona II ), 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona III ), 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966), and amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona V ), 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 19......
  • Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region, No. A124351.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2010
    ...[10 L.Ed.2d 542, 83 S.Ct. 1468]; Arizona v. California (1964) 376 U.S. 340 [11 L.Ed.2d 757, 84 S.Ct. 755]; Arizona v. California (1966) 383 U.S. 268 [15 L.Ed.2d 743, 86 S.Ct. 924]; Arizona v. California (1979) 439 U.S. 419 [58 L.Ed.2d 627, 99 S.Ct. 995]; Arizona v. California (1983) 460 U.S......
  • U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755), Docket Nos. 45381
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • September 5, 2019
    ...Arizona II ), 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona III ), 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966), and amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona V ), 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 19......
  • Lewis v. Sporck, No. C 84-20343 WAI.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • April 9, 1985
    ...1489 n. 85, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), decree entered, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended, Arizona v. California, 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966). The statement by Senator Tower, which also was not addressed by any of the conferees, is significant becau......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT