State of Arizona v. State of California
| Decision Date | 28 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,O,10 |
| Citation | 99 L.Ed. 740,75 S.Ct. 434,348 U.S. 947 |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Ross F. Jones, Atty. Gen., Howard F. Thompson, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Moeur, Burr Sutter, Theodore Kiendl and Perry M. Ling, for complainant State of Arizona.
Messrs. Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Northcutt Ely, Robert L. McCarty, Prentiss Moore and Gilbert F. Nelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Charles E. Corker and Burton J. Gindler, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant State of California.
Mr. Francis E. Jenney, for defendant Palo Verde Irrigation District.
Messrs. Harry W. Horton and R. L. Knox, Jr., for defendant Imperial Irrigation District.
Mr. Earl Redwin, for defendant Coachella Valley County Water District.
Messrs. James H. Howard, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Donald M. Keith, Alan Patten and Frank P. Doherty, for defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Mr. Roger Arnebergh, for defendant City of Los Angeles.
Mr. T. B. Cosgrove, for defendant City of San Diego.
Messrs. Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., William N. Dunseath and John W. Barrett, Deputy Attys. Gen., W. T. Mathews, and William J. Kane, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., and H. W. Edwards, for intervener State of Nevada.
Messrs. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., and Hatfield Chilson, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Colorado.
Mr. Howard B. Black, Atty. Gen., for the State of Wyoming.
Messrs. Richard Robinson, Atty. Gen., and Fred E.
Page 947-Continued.
Wilson, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of New Mexico.
Messrs. E. R. Callister, Atty. Gen., and Ken Chamberlain, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Utah.
The motion of California defendants for leave to file an amended answer is granted. The motion to join as parties, the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming is hereby referred to George I. Haight, Special Master, to hear the parties and report with all convenient speed his opinion and recommendation as to whether the motion should be granted.
The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
... ... over Federal Employers' Liability Act decisions by the highest state courts and the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Mr. Justice Brandeis' general ... ...
-
Brennan v. State of Iowa
... ... Maryland v. Wirtz, supra, 392 U.S. at 197, 88 S.Ct. 2017. See also United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 56 S.Ct. 421, 80 L.Ed. 567 (1936). 494 F.2d 103 Yet a state may assert its sovereign immunity in suits brought by private individuals ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Telephone Answering Service, Inc.
... ... and marketing electricity, none of which was transmitted across a state line, but about four per cent of which was sold and delivered to customers ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Molton, Allen & Williams, Inc.
... ... above; in otherwise communicating with persons outside the State of Alabama; and in preparing and transmitting to the Headquarters Office ... ...