Cases by Issue - Non-Real Property Dispute Between States

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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