State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois State of Michigan v. State of Illinois State of New York v. State of Illinois, No. 7
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Messrs. Edw. J. Brundage, Wm. F. Mulvihill, Morton S. Cressy, Edmond D. Adcock, Oscar E. Carlstrom, H. A. Brouillet, Jas. Hamilton Lewis, Geo. F. Barrett, and Louis J. Behan, all of Chicago, Ill. |
| Citation | 73 L.Ed. 976,279 U.S. 821,49 S.Ct. 349 |
| Parties | The STATE OF WISCONSIN et al., complainants, v. The STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.; STATE OF MICHIGAN, complainant, v. The STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.; STATE OF NEW YORK, complainant. v. STATE OF ILLINOIS et al. , original. , original. , original |
| Docket Number | No. 7,No. 12,No. 11 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1929 |
v.
The STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.; STATE OF MICHIGAN, complainant, v. The STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.; STATE OF NEW YORK, complainant. v. STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.
Supreme Court of the United States
Messrs. Wm. J. Morgan and Ralph M. Hoyt, both of Milwaukee, Wis., Herman L. Ekern, of Madison, Wis., C. L. Hilton, of St. Paul, Minn., E. C. Turner and C. C. Crabbe, both of Columbus, Ohio, Geo. W. Woodruff, of Philadelphia, Pa., Newton D. Baker, of Cleveland, Ohio, John W. Reynolds, of Madison, Wis., R. T. Jackson, of Mineral Point, Wis., G. A. Youngquist, of St. Paul, Minn., for the State of Wisconsin and others.
Messrs. Edw. J. Brundage, Wm. F. Mulvihill, Morton S. Cressy, Edmond D. Adcock, Oscar E. Carlstrom, H. A. Brouillet, Jas. Hamilton Lewis, Geo. F. Barrett, and Louis J. Behan, all of Chicago, Ill., J. T. Kenworthy and Cyrus E. Dietz, both of Rock Island, Ill., Hugh S. Johnson, of Springfield, Ill., Maclay Hoyne, of Chicago, Ill., and James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the State of Illinois and others.
Messrs. Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., A. B. Dougherty, William W. Potter, and Arthur E. Kidder, all of Lansing, Mich., for the State of Michigan.
Messrs. Hamilton Ward, Atty. Gen., of New York City, Albert J. Danaher, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Albany, N. Y., Albert Ottinger, of New York City, R. J. Le Boeuf, Jr., of Albany, N. Y., and Nathan L. Miller, of New York City, for the State of New York.
Messrs. North T. Gentry, of Columbia, Mo., Daniel N. Kirby, of St. Louis, Mo., and Cornelius Lynde, of Chicago, Ill., for intervener State of Missouri.
Mr. F. M. Thompson, of Nashville, Tenn., for intervener State of Tennessee.
Mr. F. E. Daugherty, of Louisville, Ky., for intervener State of Kentucky.
Mr. Percy Saint, of New Orleans, La., for intervener State of Louisiana.
Mr. H. W. Applegate, of Little Rock, Ark., for intervener State of Arkansas.
Mr. Rush H. Knox, of Jackson, Miss., for intervener State of Mississippi.
Motion of the City of Chicago for leave to intervene denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. State, No. 138
...U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, ......
-
State v. State, No. 138
...U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, ......
-
State v. State, No. 138, Orig.
...914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953) ; Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935) ; Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, if ......
-
South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138, Orig.
...U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, ......
-
State v. State, No. 138
...U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, ......
-
State v. State, No. 138, Orig.
...914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953) ; Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935) ; Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, if ......
-
South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138, Orig.
...U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, ......
-
State v. State, No. 138
...U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1348 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U.S. 821, 49 S.Ct. 349, 73 L.Ed. 976 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, ......