State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas United States
| Decision Date | 09 June 1924 |
| Parties | STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS (UNITED STATES, Intervener). No. ___ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
v.
STATE OF TEXAS (UNITED STATES, Intervener).
Supreme Court of the United States
Perhaps the most impressive prerogative of the United States Supreme Court is its jurisdiction over controversies between states. Eliminating the necessity of diplomacy, and perchance a resort to the final arbitrament of war, the highest judicial tribunal of this country has during this litigation exercised its jurisdiction over this disputed area and frustrated occasion to employ the sword. The following resume of the various opinions, orders, and decrees will in a measure serve to indicate the diligence and perspicacity with which court and counsel and others engaged in determining the controversy have pursued the task to final determination:
April 1, 1920:
Order granting motion of the United States for leave to intervene for an injunction and for the appointment of a receiver; order granting injunction and appointing Jacob M. Dickinson receiver, also other matters. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 252 U. S. 372, 40 Sup. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. 619.
April 13, 1920:
Frederic A. Delano appointed receiver, vice Jacob M. Dickinson declined. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 252 U. S. 372, 40 Sup. Ct. 394, 64 L. Ed. 619.
June 7, 1920:
Motions of Judsonia Developing Association and others for leave to file petitions in intervention, granted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 40 Sup. Ct. 580.
Order instructing receiver. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 253 U. S. 465, 40 Sup. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. 1015, 1017.
Order setting cause for hearing upon certain questions of law. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 40 Sup. Ct. 582.
Order setting cause for hearing upon certain questions and appointing Ernest Knaebel commissioner. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 40 Sup. Ct. 585.
Leave granted Judsonia Developing Association and others to file intervening petitions. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 40 Sup. Ct. 585.
October 18, 1920:
Motion of E. Everett Rowell for leave to intervene granted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 609, 41 Sup. Ct. 12, 65 L. Ed. 436.
November 8, 1920:
Third report of receiver filed. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 60.
December 6, 1920:
Order authorizing receiver to make certain payments for services. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 615, 41 Sup. Ct. 146, 65 L. Ed. 439.
Order directing return to General Oil Company one certain well. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 280, 41 Sup. Ct. 146, 65 L. Ed. 270.
January 18, 1921:
Fourth report of receiver filed. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 218.
January 24, 1921:
Motion of Sinclair Oil & Gas Company to require receiver to refund proceeds from oil wells denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 603, 41 Sup. Ct. 317, 65 L. Ed. 434.
Petition of Oklahoma Petroleum & Gasoline Company, requiring receiver to file statement of expenses and pay proceeds of certain oil wells, denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 603, 41 Sup. Ct. 317, 65 L. Ed. 434.
Motion of C. J. Benson and others to require receiver to file inventory of equipment purchased and to file statement of moneys charged against and realized from certain wells denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 604, 41 Sup. Ct. 318.
Order directing return to Southwest Petroleum Company, one well. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 254 U. S. 604, 41 Sup. Ct. 318.
Leave granted to submit response of United States to motion of Southwest Petroleum Company and to motion of Sinclair
Oil & Gas Company. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 318.
Motion of General Oil Company to set aside and amend decree submitted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 318.
Motion of National Petroleum & Refining Company for return of patented lands submitted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 318.
Motion of T. P. Roberts and another for return of patented lands submitted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 319.
Motion of T. P. Roberts and another to require receiver to pay to them certain moneys submitted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 319.
Motion of Continental Oil Company for leave to intervene submitted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 319.
Motion of Continental Oil Company to direct receiver to protect lands submitted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 319.
April 11, 1921:
Opinion deciding questions set for hearing in State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 40 Sup. Ct. 582; State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 70, 41 Sup. Ct. 420, 65 L. Ed. 831.
May 2, 1921:
Motion of John M. Taylor et al. for leave to intervene denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 536.
June 1, 1921:
Orders made regarding: Application of Pearson et al; Claim of Eoff; Claim of Armstrong et af.; instructions to receiver; order setting intervening petitions for hearing; order to show cause why writ of prohibition should not be issued; reimbursement of operators and drillers; order setting cause for further hearing; order as to filing of petitions in intervention. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 539, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order authorizing receiver to sink well. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 621, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order authorizing receiver to sink a well. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order appointing Frederick S. Tyler special master to hear and report on certain claims. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order instructing receiver as to development work, etc. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order appointing commissioner to take evidence respecting special issues joined upon intervening petitions. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order to show cause why writ of prohibition should not be issued. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order authorizing receiver to make certain reimbursements. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order appointing commissioner to take evidence as to what constitutes south bank of Red river. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
Order directing no petition in intervention to be filed without special leave. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U. S. 602, 41 Sup. Ct. 622, 65 L. Ed. 1114, 1118.
June 6, 1921:
Leave to file petition in intervention of D. D. Brunson granted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 41 Sup. Ct. 624.
October 5, 1921:
Order permitting certain interveners to appear before commissioner. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 609, 42 Sup. Ct. 45, 66 L. Ed. 395.
October 17, 1921:
Francis Chanate and others granted leave to intervene. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 611, 42 Sup. Ct. 49, 66 L. Ed. 396.
Motion of Melish Consolidated Placer Mining Association for modification of order of June 1, 1921, denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 611, 42 Sup. Ct. 49, 66 L. Ed. 396.
Motion of Melish Consolidated Placer Mining Association for return of certain wells to receiver denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 637, 42 Sup. Ct. 50, 66 L. Ed. 396.
November 21, 1921:
Order authorizing certain payments for services. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 616, 42 Sup. Ct. 94, 66 L. Ed. 399.
December 6, 1921:
Leave granted to file report of commissioner. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 42 Sup. Ct. 96.
December 12, 1921:
Motion of Melish Consolidated Placer Oil Mining Association for leave to amend bill of intervention granted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 42 Sup. Ct. 167.
Motion of Clarke, receiver, to be joined as party complainant, granted. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 42 Sup. Ct. 167.
Grand Oil & Developing Co., granted leave to file petition in intervention. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 308, 42 Sup. Ct. 167, 66 L. Ed. 252.
Report of special master approved and certain payments authorized. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 308, 42 Sup. Ct. 167, 66 L. Ed. 252.
January 16, 1922:
Order allowing compensation of commissioner. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 257 U. S. 621, 42 Sup. Ct. 187, 66 L. Ed. 401.
March 20, 1922:
Motion of state of Arkansas for leave to file petition in intervention denied. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 258 U. S. 606, 42 Sup. Ct. 314, 66 L. Ed. 786.
May 1, 1922:
Opinion on hearing as to proprietary claims to bed of Red river and to proceeds of oil and gas taken therefrom. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 42 Sup. Ct. 406, 66 L. Ed. 771.
June 5, 1922:
Decree determining that Red river is not navigable and certain proprietary claims to river bed. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 42 Sup. Ct. 587.
Decree adjudicating proprietary claims to land in river bed. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 259 U. S. 565, 42 Sup. Ct. 594, 66 L. Ed. 1067.
December 11, 1922:
Order authorizing payments to counsel and receiver. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 260 U. S. 705, 43 Sup. Ct. 166, 67 L. Ed. 473.
January 15, 1923:
Opinion on hearing on evidence as to location of boundary; reference to commissioners. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 260 U. S. 606, 43 Sup. Ct. 221, 67 L. Ed. 428.
January 29, 1923:
Application of Red River Syndicate for modification of opinion delivered May 1, 1922 (State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 42 Sup. Ct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brainard v. State, 98-0578
... ... A. Whittenburg, IV, et al., Petitioners ... The State of Texas and the General Land Office of the State of Texas, ... Respondents ... Roberts Counties, before joining the Arkansas River in eastern Oklahoma. In 1962, the United States Bureau of Reclamation began construction of ... ...
-
Diversion Lake Club v. Heath
... ... No. 6515 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... October 2, 1935 ... of the two lakes was granted by the state, in accordance with the mandate of the statute, ... the lake with fish procured from the United States government, and improved the property for ... the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 260 U. S ... ...
-
Turner v. Mullins
... ... 2-04-160-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth ... March 31, 2005 ... Land is not located in Cotton County, Oklahoma, and that the Disputed Land has accreted to the ... See Maufrais v. State, 142 Tex. 559, 180 S.W.2d 144, 150 (1944); City ... Court held the boundary between the states of Oklahoma and Texas in this area to be along ... method created for, and approved by, the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases styled ... ...
-
Simons v. Vinson
... ... No. 24824 ... United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ... May 3, ... Appellants, Texas riparian landowners, filed this complaint against ... boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma) on which Lessors have granted various leases to ... ; that the river channel itself is in the State of Oklahoma; that parts of the north half of the ... ...