General
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
340 U.S. 858·Supreme Court of the United States·1950
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. 2,
No. 3,
No. 4,
Original.
Original.
Original.
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, Robert J. Burdett, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernst Buehler were on the petition of the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago. On the motion to dismiss the petition were Thomas E. Fairchild, Attorney General, for the State of Wisconsin; J. A. A. Burnquist, Attorney General, for the State of Minnesota; Herbert S. Duffy, Attorney General, for the State of Ohio; Charles J. Margiotti, Attorney General, and M. Vashti Burr, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of Pennsylvania; Stephen J. Roth, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, and Graydon G. Withey, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of Michigan; Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General, and Edward L. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of New York; and Herbert H. Naujoks, Special Assistant to Attorneys General.
[MAJORITY]
The motion of the States of Wisconsin et al. to dismiss the petition of the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago for an interpretation and clarification of the decree of April 21, 1930, 281 U. S. 696, is granted.