United States v. State of Louisiana
Decision Date | 24 June 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 11,O,11 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA. riginal |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Solicitor General J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff.
Messrs. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., W. Scott Wilkinson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Shreveport, La., and Victor A. Sachse, Baton Rouge, La., for the defendant.
The Court has before it the motions of the United States for judgment and of Louisiana for leave to take depositions. As a result of its consideration of these matters, including the representations made by the State of Texas in its amicus curiae brief, the Court is of the opinion that the issues in this litigation are so related to the possible interests of Texas, and other States situated on the Gulf of Mexico, in the subject matter of this suit, that the just, orderly, and effective determination of such issues requires that they be adjudicated in a proceeding in which all the interested parties are before the Court.
Accordingly, to that end, the Court, acting pursuant to Rules 9(2) and (6) of its Revised Rules, Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. and the general equity powers of the Court, grants leave to each of the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas to intervene in this suit within 60 days from the date of this opinion, with leave to the United States, within 60 days thereafter, to file an amended or supplemental complaint adding as parties to this suit any of such States as shall not have so intervened. The bringing in of such additional parties shall be without prejudice to the present motions of the United States and Louisiana, subject only to shch terms as justice may require vis-a -vis the additional parties. Meanwhile such motions are continued.
Motions continued.
The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ingraham v. Wright
...County. See Rule 21, F.R.Civ.P.; Mullaney v. Anderson, 1952, 342 U.S. 415, 72 S.Ct. 428, 96 L. Ed. 458; United States v. Louisiana, 1957, 354 U.S. 515, 77 S.Ct. 1373, 1 L. Ed.2d 1525; Halladay v. Verschoor, 8 Cir. 1967, 381 F.2d 100; Rakes v. Coleman, E.D.Va.1970, 318 F.Supp. 181; 3A Moore ......
-
United States v. States of Louisiana, Texas Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, 10
...and effective determination' of the issues required that all those States be before the Court. United States v. State of Louisiana, 354 U.S. 515, 516, 77 S.Ct. 1373, 1 L.Ed.2d 1525. All are now defendants, each has claimed a three-league boundary and grant, which the United States denies, a......
-
United States v. Louisiana
...task of this opinion. The lawsuit continued, and in 1957 the other Gulf States in effect were requested to intervene. 354 U.S. 515, 77 S.Ct. 1373, 1 L.Ed.2d 1525. In due course this Court held, among other things, that the Submerged Lands Act granted Louisiana ownership "to a distance no gr......
-
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of California
...Inc., 105 F.Supp. 886, 899-900 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd on other grounds, 199 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1952); cf. United States v. Louisiana, 354 U.S. 515, 77 S.Ct. 1373, 1 L.Ed.2d 1525 (1957); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 51 F.R.D. 517, 519 (W.D.Pa.1970); Adams v. Bell Aircraft Corp., 7 F.R.D. 48 (......