Cover Image

State of Arizona, complainant, vs. State of California ... [et al.], defendants : United States of America, intervener : State of Nevada, intervener : reply brief of the California defendants in support of their motion to join, as parties, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

Show other versions (185)

Case summary: "Arizona v. California was a 12-year epic battle including three years of trial in front of a special master appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial involved 106 witnesses and hundreds of volumes of exhibits, ultimately producing a 433-page final report from the Master in D...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Corporate Authors: Arizona (Complainant), California (Defendant), Palo Verde Irrigation District (Calif.) (Defendant), Imperial Irrigation District (Calif.) (Defendant), Coachella Valley County Water District (Calif.) (Defendant), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Calif.) (Defendant), Los Angeles (Calif.) (Defendant), San Diego (Calif.) (Defendant), San Diego County (Calif.) (Defendant), United States (intervener.), Nevada (intervener.), United States. Supreme Court
Other Authors: Brown, Edmund G. (Edmund Gerald), 1905-1996, Ely, Northcutt, 1903-1997, McCarty, Robert L., Moore, Prentiss, Nelson, Gilbert F., Corker, Charles E., Gindler, Burton J., Wheatley, Charles F., Norris, William Albert, 1927-2017, Friedman, Howard I., Jenney, Francis E., Horton, Harry W., Knox, R. L., Redwine, Earl, Howard, James H., Cooper, Charles C., Jr, Keith, Donald M., Patten, Alan, Doherty, Frank P., Arnebergh, Roger, Tillman, Gilmore, Mathews, John H., Du Paul, J. F., Higgins, Shelley J., Cosgrove, T. B., Keller, James Don
Other title:At head of title: In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1954, no. 10 original.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1954, no. 10 original : State of Arizona, complainant vs. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants : United States of America, intervener : state of Nevada, intervener : reply brief of the California defendants in support of their motion to join, as parties, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1954, no. 10 original : State of Arizona, complainant, vs. State of California ... [et al.], defendants : United States of America, intervener : State of Nevada, intervener : reply brief of the California defendants in support of their motion to join, as parties, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
Reply brief of the California defendants in support of their motion to join, as parties, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Arizona v. California.
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963)
Arizona vs. California.
Arizona v. California collection.
Arizona v. California collection : California records and briefs.
Format: Book
Language:English
Published: [United States] : [publisher not identified], [1955?]
Subjects:
Water rights > Southwest, New.
Water-supply > Southwest, New.
Water consumption > Southwest, New.
Colorado River (Colo.-Mexico) > Water rights.
Description
Summary:Case summary: "Arizona v. California was a 12-year epic battle including three years of trial in front of a special master appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial involved 106 witnesses and hundreds of volumes of exhibits, ultimately producing a 433-page final report from the Master in December of 1960. Proceedings at the U.S. Supreme Court required two oral arguments, producing a 5-3 decision in 1963 with two dissenting opinions, with the majority opinion implemented by a decree in 1964. The case was an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Arizona seeking to clarify its rights to the use of Colorado River basin water. It was filed 30 years after the seven basin states drafted the Colorado River Compact, which apportioned the waters of the basin roughly equally between the states of the Upper and Lower Divisions, but did not apportion shares to individual states. In addition to Arizona and California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah were party to the case because they had lands located within the Lower Basin. The United States was also party to the case because of the federal water projects and lands located within the Lower Basin. It was perhaps the most high profile water case ever to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and produced considerable commentary."-- Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Arizona v. California Revisited, 52 Nat. Resources J. 363, 365-66 (2012) (quoted with permission of the author)
Item Description:Cover title.
Attorneys listed on inside of cover: Edmund G. Brown, Northcutt Ely, Robert L. McCarty, Prentiss Moore, Gilbert F. Nelson, Charles E. Corker, Burton J. Gindler, Charles F. Wheatley Jr., William A. Norris, Howard I. Friedman, Francis E. Jenney, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox Jr., Earl Redwine, James H. Howard, Charles E. Cooper Jr., Donald M. Keith, Alan Patten, Frank P. Doherty, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, John H. Mathews, J. F. Du Paul, Shelley J. Higgins, T. B. Cosgrove, James Don Keller.
Physical Description:vi, 73 pages ; 24 cm
Bibliography:Includes bibliographical references.
Preferred Citation of Described Materials Note:Citation: Reply Brief of the California Defendants in Support of Their Motion to Join, as Parties, the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Arizona v. California, No. 10 Original, 1954 Term (U.S. filed Feb. 1955)
Landmark decision citation: Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963)

Similar Items