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. Missouri, 1966 — 382 U.S. 1022 · caselaw · US
General
Illinois v. Missouri
382 U.S. 1022·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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
January 31, 1966.
No. 18,
Original.
Illinois v. Missouri.
William O. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, Richard A. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, and Terence F. MacCarthy, Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff.
[For earlier orders herein, see 379 U. S. 952; 380 U. S. 901, 969; ante, p. 803.]
[MAJORITY]
The amended complaint is filed and the State of Missouri is allotted 60 days to answer the complaint, as amended.