Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Illinois v. Michigan et al., 1959 — 359 U.S. 941 · caselaw · US
General
Illinois v. Michigan et al.
359 U.S. 941·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 15,
Original.
Illinois v. Michigan et al.
Paul L. Adams, Attorney General, Samuel J. Torina, Solicitor General, and Nicholas V. Olds, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Michigan; Mark McElroy, Attorney General, and Harold Read, First Aésistant Attorney General, for the State of Ohio; and Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, and Lois G. Forer, Deputy Attorney General, for the' State of Pennsylvania, movants. Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, William C. Wines, Assistant Attorney General, and George E. Billett, Charles A. Bane and Calvin D. Trowbridge, Special' Assistant Attorneys General, for complainant.
[MAJORITY]
The motion of the States, of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania for an extension of time to answer the motion for leave to file the complaint is granted and the time is extended to and including March 31, 1959.