Cases by Issue - Interstate Relations

California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-42

Petitioner

California Franchise Tax Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hyatt

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

538 U.S. 488 (2003)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 2003

Decided

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Advocates

H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Felix Leatherwood (Los Angeles, California, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Gilbert Hyatt filed a part-year resident income-tax return in California for 1991, which represented that he had become a Nevada resident in October 1991, shortly before he received substantial licensing fees. The California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB) determined that Hyatt was a California resident until April 1992 and issued notices of proposed assessments and imposed substantial civil fraud penalties. Hyatt filed suit against CFTB in a Nevada state court, alleging that CFTB had committed negligence and intentional torts during the course of its audit. CFTB argued that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because full faith and credit required that the court apply California law immunizing CFTB from suit. Ultimately, the Nevada Supreme Court allowed the intentional tort claims to proceed to trial. The court held that affording CFTB statutory immunity with respect to intentional torts would contravene Nevada's interest in protecting its citizens from injurious intentional torts and bad faith acts committed by sister States' government employees.

Question

Does the Nevada Supreme Court's refusal to extend full faith and credit to California's statute immunizing its tax collection agency from suit violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hyatt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Nevada to give full faith and credit to California's statutes providing its tax agency with immunity from suit. Noting that Nevada did not grant immunity to its agencies for intentional torts, the Court reasoned that Nevada's interest in redressing intentional tortious conduct was sufficient to decline to accord full faith and credit to California's immunity of its tax agency to bar intentional tort claims. Accordingly, the Court refused to adopt a new rule mandating that a state court extend full faith and credit to a sister State's statutorily recaptured sovereign immunity from suit when a refusal to do so would interfere with the State's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities.

New Hampshire v. Maine

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

130 ORIG

Plaintiff

New Hampshire

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Maine

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 742 (2001)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 2001

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (Department of Justice, as amicus curiae, supporting the defendant)

Paul Stern (Augusta, Maine, argued the cause for the defendant)

Leslie J. Ludtke (Concord, NH, argued the cause for the plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

In 1977, a dispute between New Hampshire and Maine over lobster fishing rights resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court entering a consent judgment setting the precise location of the States' "lateral marine boundary," or the boundary in the marine waters off the coast. Utilizing a 1740 decree of King George II, the States agreed that the decree's words "Middle of the River" referred to the middle of the Piscataqua River's main navigable channel. Ultimately, the 1997 consent judgment defined "Middle of the River" as "the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River." The consent judgment did not fix the inland Piscataqua River boundary. In 2000, New Hampshire brought an original action against Maine, claiming that the inland river boundary runs along the Maine shore and that the entire Piscataqua River and all of Portsmouth Harbor belong to New Hampshire. In response, Maine filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the 1740 boundary determination by King George II and the 1977 consent judgment barred the complaint.

Question

Is New Hampshire's original suit against Maine, which disputes the Piscataqua River boundary, barred by earlier proceedings?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Maine, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that "judicial estoppel bars New Hampshire from asserting that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore." Under the judicial estoppel doctrine, "[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him," wrote Justice Ginsburg. "New Hampshire's claim that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore is clearly inconsistent with its interpretation of the words 'Middle of the River' during the 1970's litigation," concluded Ginsburg.

Kansas v. Colorado

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

105 ORIG

Plaintiff

Kansas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Colorado

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

533 U.S. 1 (2001)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 2001

Decided

Monday, June 11, 2001

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States, as Intervenor)

David W. Robbins (on behalf of the Defendant)

John B. Draper (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

In 1949, Congress approved the Arkansas River Compact. Article IV-D provided that future development of the river basin could not materially deplete the usable quantity or availability to other users of the river's waters. In 1986, Kansas filed suit alleging that Colorado had violated the Compact. Ultimately, the Special Master found that post-Compact increases in groundwater well pumping in Colorado had materially depleted the waters in violation of Article IV-D. The Special Master, in his second report, recommended that damages be awarded to Kansas. In his third report, the Special Master recommended that such damages be measured by Kansas' losses attributable to Compact violations since 1950, be paid in money not water, and include prejudgment interest from 1969 to the date of judgment. Colorado filed four objections to the third report, Kansas filed one, and the United States submitted that all objections should be overruled.

Question

Does the Eleventh Amendment preclude the recommended award of damages based on losses sustained by individual water users in Kansas? Should the damages include prejudgment interest? Is the amount of interest excessive? Should the prejudgment interest be paid from 1950 rather than 1969? Did the Special Master improperly calculate the value of the crop losses attributable to the Compact violations?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kansas, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

No, yes, no, no, and no. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court remanded the case to the Special Master for preparation of a final judgment consistent with its opinion. The Court unanimously concluded that the recommended damages award does not violate the Eleventh Amendment and that the Special Master properly determined the value of the crop losses attributable to Compact violations. In a 6-3 split, the Court ruled that the unliquidated nature of Kansas' money damages does not bar an award of prejudgment interest and that the Special Master determined the appropriate rate for the prejudgment interest award, which should begin running in 1969.

Arizona v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

8 ORIG

Plaintiff

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

California

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

530 U.S. 392 (2000)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 2000

Decided

Monday, June 19, 2000

Advocates

Mason D. Morisset (Argued the cause for the Quechan Indian Tribe)

Jerome C. Muys (Argued the cause for the state parties)

Jeffrey P. Minear (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

In 1952, Arizona invoked the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to resolve a dispute with California over the extent of each state's right to use water from the Colorado River. The United States intervened, seeking water rights on behalf of five Indian reservations. Culminating in Arizona I, the Court held that the United States had reserved water rights for the five reservations. In a 1964 decree, the Court specified the water entitlements for the parties and the reservations, but held that the water rights for the reservations would be subject to adjustment in the event that the reservations' disputed boundaries were finally determined. Thereafter in Arizona II, the Court concluded that the reservations' boundaries had yet to be determined. Ultimately, the Quechan Tribe (Tribe) of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the United States entered an agreement returning land encompassing some 25,000 acres of disputed boundary lands not attributed to that reservation in earlier litigation. In 1983, the Court of Claims consented to the settlement. The Tribe and the United States then filed claims seeking increased water rights for the Fort Yuma Reservation. In 1989, the Court granted the motion of Arizona, California, and two municipal water districts (State parties) to reopen the 1964 decree to determine whether the Fort Yuma Reservation was entitled to claim additional boundary lands and, if so, additional water rights. The State parties asserted that the Fort Yuma claims of the Tribe and the United States were precluded by Arizona I and by the Claims Court consent judgment.

Question

Are the Quechan Tribe and the United States claims for increased water rights for the Fort Yuma Reservation from the Colorado River precluded by the Supreme Court's prior decision in Arizona v. California and by a consent judgement?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

No. In a opinion deliver by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court rejected both grounds for preclusion and remanded the case to a Special Master for a determination on the merits of the outstanding claims for additional water rights associated with disputed Fort Yuma Reservation boundary lands. "Those claims are the only ones that remain to be decided in Arizona v. California; their resolution will enable the Court to enter a final consolidated decree and bring this case to a close," wrote Justice Ginsburg for the Court.

New Jersey v. New York

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

120 ORIG

Plaintiff

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New York

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 767 (1998)

Argued

Monday, January 12, 1998

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (Argued the cause for the United States, amicus curiae)

Joseph L. Yannotti (Argued the cause for the plaintiff)

Daniel Smirlock (Argued the cause for the defendant)

Facts of the Case

Under an 1834 compact between New York and New Jersey, Ellis Island was deemed part of New York. It was later determined, by the Supreme Court, that New Jersey would have sovereign rights over all submerged lands on its side of the Hudson River. During the time Ellis Island was used to receive immigrants, the Federal Government filled around the island adding some 24.5 acres to its original size over 42 years. When immigration was diverted from Ellis Island in 1954, New York and New Jersey asserted rival sovereignty claims over the Island's filled portions. New Jersey finally invoked the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to solve the matter once and for all time.

Question

Are the filled portions on Jersey's Side of Ellis Island under the sovereign authority of the State of New York or the State of New Jersey?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

The Court held that the 1834 compact between the two states, although granting New York sovereignty over Ellis Island, did not support an inference that any portions added to the island's New Jersey side would also belong to New York. The lack of meets and bounds descriptions in the compact indicated that it merely applied to Ellis Island as it existed in 1834, and did not contemplate ownership of expanded portions. Moreover, the Court noted that under the common law doctrine of avulsion, sudden shoreline changes have no effect on boundaries. Thus, since New Jersey had sovereignty over previously submerged portions of Ellis Island, it would retain such sovereignty when these portions were filled until raised above the water line on its side of the Island.

Baker v. General Motors Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-653

Petitioner

Baker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Motors Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 222 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1997

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1998

Advocates

Paul T. Cappuccio (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

After working for General Motors Corporation (GM) for fifteen years as a vehicular fire analyst, Ronald Elwell sued GM for wrongful discharge. In an eventual settlement agreement reached in a Michigan county court, the parties agreed to a permanent injunction barring Elwell from testifying against GM without its consent, unless subpoenaed to do so by another court or tribunal. Thereafter, when Kenneth Lee Baker commenced a product liability action against GM in a Missouri county court, Elwell was subpoenaed to testify on Baker's behalf. When GM argued that Elwell was barred from testifying under the Michigan court injunction, the Missouri court disagreed and permitted his deposition and testimony. After suffering an adverse verdict in the Baker case, GM appealed on the basis that Elwell's testimony was illegally admitted. When a federal appeals court agreed with GM, Baker appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Was a Missouri county court's admission of a witness's testimony, barred by a Michigan county court's injunction, a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Baker, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

No. In unanimous decision, the Court held that GM's injunctive agreement with Elwell did not reach beyond the parties specific controversy to affect Elwell's conduct in other states. Noting Missouri's "public policy," shielding from disclosure only confidential or privileged information, the Court reasoned that since Elwell's testimony in the Baker case was neither confidential nor privileged, its prohibition would not be necessary. Finally, the Court ruled that full faith and credit does not require states to adopt other state's practices regarding time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Such enforcement measures are subject to the "even-handed" control of local state forums.

Louisiana v. Mississippi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

121 ORIG

Plaintiff

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Mississippi et al.

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 22 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1995

Decided

Tuesday, October 31, 1995

Advocates

Robert R. Bailess (on behalf of the Defendant Mississippi)

Gary L. Keyser (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

James W. McCartney (on behalf of the Defendant Houston Group)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mississippi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Kansas v. Colorado

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

105 ORIG

Plaintiff

Kansas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Colorado

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 673 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1995

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1995

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States)

David W. Robbins (on behalf of the Defendant Colorado)

John B. Draper (on behalf of the Plaintiff Kansas)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Colorado, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 63 Stat. 145

None

Nebraska v. Wyoming

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

108 ORIG

Petitioner

Nebraska

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wyoming et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 1 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1995

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1995

Advocates

Dennis C. Cook (on behalf of the Defendant Wyoming)

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States)

Timothy M. Tymkovich (on behalf of the Defendant Colorado)

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of the Plaintiff Nebraska)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wyoming, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Nebraska v. Wyoming

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

108 ORIG

Plaintiff

Nebraska

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Wyoming et al.

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 584 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, April 20, 1993

Advocates

Dennis C. Cook (on behalf of the State of Wyoming)

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States)

Gale Norton (on behalf of the State of Colorado)

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of the State of Nebraska)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nebraska, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Delaware v. New York

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:52:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

111 ORIG

Plaintiff

Delaware

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New York

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 490 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Advocates

Jerry Boone (on behalf of the Defendant)

Bernard Nash (in support of Report of Special Master)

Dennis G. Lyons (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Delaware, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Oklahoma v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

109 ORIG

Plaintiff

Oklahoma

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

501 U.S. 221 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1991

Advocates

Paul Elliott (on behalf of the Plaintiff Texas)

Marian Matthews (on behalf of the Defendant)

R. Thomas Lay (on behalf of the Plaintiff Oklahoma)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Oklahoma, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Illinois v. Kentucky

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

106 ORIG

Plaintiff

Illinois

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

500 U.S. 380 (1991)

Argued

Monday, March 18, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1991

Advocates

John Brunsman (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Rickie L. Pearson (on behalf of the Defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Illinois, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Georgia v. South Carolina

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74 ORIG

Plaintiff

Georgia

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

South Carolina

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 376 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1990

Advocates

Patricia T. Barmeyer (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Thomas E. McCutchen, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Georgia, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Split Vote

None

Texas v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

65 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 124 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Charlotte Uram (on behalf of the plaintiff)

Renea Hicks (on behalf of the defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Texas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Louisiana v. Mississippi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86 ORIG

Plaintiff

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Mississippi

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 96 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1984

Advocates

David C. Kimmel (on behalf of Defendants)

J. I. Palmer, Jr. (on behalf of Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Colorado v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80 ORIG

Plaintiff

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 310 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1984

Advocates

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of the Defendants)

Robert F. Welborn (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Mexico, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

67 ORIG

Plaintiff

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Oregon

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 1017 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1983

Decided

Thursday, June 23, 1983

Advocates

Edward B. Mackie (on behalf of Defendant Washington)

Jim Jones (on behalf of the Plaintiffs)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oregon, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Colorado v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80 ORIG

Plaintiff

Colorado

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 176 (1982)

Argued

Monday, October 4, 1982

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1982

Advocates

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of the Defendants)

Robert F. Welborn (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Colorado, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

California v. Nevada

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73 ORIG

Plaintiff

California

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Nevada

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 125 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Advocates

James R. Thompson (on behalf of the Defendant)

Jan S. Stevens (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Texas v. New Mexico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

65 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Mexico

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 540 (1980)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Advocates

Douglas G. Caroom (on behalf of Plaintiff)

Richard A. Simms (on behalf of Defendant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for New Mexico, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ohio v. Kentucky

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

27 ORIG

Plaintiff

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 335 (1980)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

James M. Ringo (on behalf of the Defendant)

Michael R. Szolosi (on behalf of the Plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

67 ORIG

Plaintiff

Idaho Ex Rel. Evans

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Oregon

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 380 (1980)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1979

Decided

Monday, January 21, 1980

Advocates

Louis F. Claiborne (as amicus curiae)

James A. Redden (on behalf of the Defendants)

Slade Gorton (on behalf of the Defendants)

David H. Leroy (on behalf of the Plaintiffs)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Idaho Ex Rel. Evans, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

67 ORIG

Plaintiff

Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Oregon

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 163 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, December 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

New Hampshire v. Maine

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

64 ORIG

Plaintiff

New Hampshire

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Maine

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 363 (1976)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Hampshire, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Texas v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

36 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 465 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mississippi v. Arkansas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

48 ORIG

Plaintiff

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 289 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mississippi, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mississippi v. Arkansas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

48 ORIG

Plaintiff

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Arkansas

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 302 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mississippi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ohio v. Kentucky

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

27 ORIG

Plaintiff

Ohio

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 641 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kentucky, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Texas v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

36 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 702 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Texas, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

Michigan v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

30 ORIG

Plaintiff

Michigan

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Ohio

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 420 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ohio, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Pennsylvania v. New York

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

40 ORIG

Plaintiff

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New York

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

407 U.S. 206 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Nebraska v. Iowa

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

17 ORIG

Plaintiff

Nebraska

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Iowa

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 117 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nebraska, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Arkansas v. Tennessee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

33 ORIG

Plaintiff

Arkansas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Tennessee

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 88 (1970)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1970

Decided

Sunday, January 25, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Tennessee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Simons v. Miami Beach Nat. Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

363

Petitioner

Simons

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miami Beach Nat. Bank

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

381 U.S. 81 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, March 10, 1965

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Miami Beach Nat. Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Texas v. New Jersey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

13 ORIG

Plaintiff

Texas

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

New Jersey

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 674 (1965)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 1, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Texas, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Louisiana v. Mississippi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:43:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

14 ORIG

Petitioner

Louisiana

Respondent

Mississippi

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 24 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1963, Tuesday, November 16, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Durfee v. Duke

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Durfee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Duke

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 106 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Durfee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: res judicata

None

Aldrich v. Aldrich

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Aldrich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aldrich

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 540 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aldrich, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Illinois v. Michigan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

15 ORIG

Petitioner

Illinois

Respondent

Michigan

Consolidation

No. 2 ORIG

No. 3 ORIG

No. 4 ORIG

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 712 (1959)

Argued

May 21-22, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Michigan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

California v. Washington

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

12 ORIG

Petitioner

California

Respondent

Washington

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

358 U.S. 64 (1958)

Argued

October 15-16, 1958

Decided

Monday, November 10, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Washington, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 21: Twenty-First Amendment

None

Arizona v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

10 ORIG

Plaintiff

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

California

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 114 (1955)

Argued

Thursday, December 8, 1955

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Armstrong v. Armstrong

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Armstrong

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Armstrong

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 568 (1956)

Argued

Tuesday, November 15, 1955

Decided

Monday, April 9, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Armstrong, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

None

Mississippi v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

11 ORIG

Plaintiff

Mississippi

Petitioner Type

Plaintiff

Defendant

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Defendant

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 5 (1955)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1955

Decided

Monday, October 17, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None