State of Arizona v. State of California
| Decision Date | 01 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 10,10 |
| Citation | 347 U.S. 986,74 S.Ct. 848,98 L.Ed. 1121 |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
It is order that George I. Haight, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, be, and he is hereby, appointed special master in this cause, with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The master is directed to find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law thereon, and to submit the same to this Court with all convenient speed, together with a draft of the decree recommended by him. The findings, conclusions, and recommended decree of the master shall be subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the Court. The master shall be allowed his actual expenses and a reasonable compensation for his services to be fixed hereafter by the Court. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his stenographic and clerical assistants, and the cost of printing his report shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct. If the appointment herein made of a master is not accepted, or if the place becomes vacant during the recess of the Court, the Senior Associate Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court herein.
The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
Messrs. Edmund G. Brown, Atty.Gen., Northcutt Ely, Robert L. McCarty and Prentiss Moore Asst. Attys. Gen., and Gilbert F. Nelson, George M. Treister, Irving Jaffe and Robert Sterling Wolf, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant State of California.
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 Redwine, 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.
Attorney General Brownell, for intervener United States.
Messrs. W. T. Mathews, Atty. Gen., Alan Bible and William J. Kane, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., and Geo. P. Annand, William N. Dunseath and John W. Barrett, Deputy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Arizona v. State of California
...San Diego, and County of San Diego. 3. 344 U.S. 919, 73 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 or......
-
Hart v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D.# 21
...denied, 308 U.S. 597, 60 S.Ct. 131, 84 L.Ed. 499, modified on other grounds, 113 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1940). In Arizona v. California, 347 U.S. 986, 74 S.Ct. 848, 98 L.Ed. 1121 (1954), a complex litigation over water rights involving five western states, the Supreme Court appointed a special m......
-
Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...of water. (Id. ) The United States sought and was granted leave to intervene in that action. Arizona v. California, 347 U.S. 985, 74 S.Ct. 848, 98 L.Ed. 1121 (1954). In the action, in its role as trustee, the United States claimed federally reserved Winters water rights in the Lower Colorad......
-
Davis v. Portline Transportes Maritime Internacional
... ... his shoe) and that the spill was obvious, 971 F.2d at 1027, we did state that: ... [A]s the [House] committee report [accompanying the amendment ... ...