State of Arizona v. State of California, No. 10

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER
Citation350 U.S. 114,76 S.Ct. 188,100 L.Ed. 125
Decision Date12 December 1955
Docket NumberO,No. 10
PartiesSTATE OF ARIZONA v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. riginal

350 U.S. 114
76 S.Ct. 188
100 L.Ed. 125
STATE OF ARIZONA

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 10, Original.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Dec. 8, 1955.
December 12, 1955
Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1956.
See 350 U.S. 955, 76 S.Ct. 340.

See also 350 U.S. 880, 76 S.Ct. 133.

Mr. Northcutt Ely, Washington, D.C., for State of California.

Messrs. John P. Frank, Phoenix, Ariz., Ernest W. McFarland, Florence, Ariz., for State of Arizona.

Page 115

Mr. W. T. Mathews, Reno, Nev., for State of Nevada.

Mr. Hatfield Chilson, Loveland, Colo., for State of Colorado et al.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of California to join the States of Colorado and Wyoming as parties to this cause is denied. The motion to join Utah and New Mexico as parties is granted only to the extent of their interest in Lower Basin waters.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice BURTON, and Mr. Justice HARLAN would grant the motion.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE did not participate in this proceeding.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State of Arizona v. State of California, No. 8
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 3 Junio 1963
    ...S.Ct. 385, 97 L.Ed. 708 (1953) (intervention by United States); 347 U.S. 985, 74 S.Ct. 848, 98 L.Ed. 1121 (1954) (intervention by Nevada); 350 U.S. 114, 76 S.Ct. 188, 100 L.Ed. 125 (1955) (joinder of Utah and New Mexico). 4. The two orders are reported at 347 U.S. 986, 74 S.Ct. 848, 98 L.Ed......
  • Arizona v. California, No. 8, Orig.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 2000
    ...the United States); 347 U. S. 985 (1954) (intervention by Nevada). The State of New Mexico and the State of Utah were joined as parties. 350 U. S. 114, 115 (1955). The Court referred the case to George I. Haight, Esquire, and upon his death to Simon H. Rifkind, Esquire, as Special Master. 3......
2 cases
  • State of Arizona v. State of California, No. 8
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 3 Junio 1963
    ...S.Ct. 385, 97 L.Ed. 708 (1953) (intervention by United States); 347 U.S. 985, 74 S.Ct. 848, 98 L.Ed. 1121 (1954) (intervention by Nevada); 350 U.S. 114, 76 S.Ct. 188, 100 L.Ed. 125 (1955) (joinder of Utah and New Mexico). 4. The two orders are reported at 347 U.S. 986, 74 S.Ct. 848, 98 L.Ed......
  • Arizona v. California, No. 8, Orig.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 2000
    ...the United States); 347 U. S. 985 (1954) (intervention by Nevada). The State of New Mexico and the State of Utah were joined as parties. 350 U. S. 114, 115 (1955). The Court referred the case to George I. Haight, Esquire, and upon his death to Simon H. Rifkind, Esquire, as Special Master. 3......

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