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.
Corporations
VERMONT v. NEW YORK et al.
406 U.S. 18631 L. Ed. 2d 785·Supreme Court of the United States·1972
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
VERMONT v. NEW YORK et al.
No. 50,
Orig.
Argued February 29, 1972
Decided April 24, 1972
Fred I. Parker, Deputy Attorney General of Vermont, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the briefs were James M. Jeffords, Attorney General, and John D. Hansen, Assistant Attorney General.
Philip Weinberg, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for defendant State of New York. With him on the briefs were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Paul S. Shernin and Irving Galt, Assistant Attorneys General. Taggart Whipple argued the cause for defendant International Paper Co. With him on the briefs were Richard E. Nolan and William H. Levit, Jr.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion by Vermont for leave to file a bill oí complaint invoking our original jurisdiction against New York and against International Paper Co., a New York corporation doing business in New York, is granted. New York and International Paper Co. are given until June 19, 1972, to answer the bill of complaint.
So ordered.