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.
Texas v. New Mexico et al., 1957 — 352 U.S. 991 · caselaw · US
General
Texas v. New Mexico et al.
352 U.S. 991·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
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
February 25, 1957.
No. 9,
Original.
Texas v. New Mexico et al.
Will Wilson, Attorney General, Will Davis, Assistant Attorney General, and Eugene T. Edwards, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Texas, plaintiff. Fred M. Standley, Attorney General, and Fred E. Wilson, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of New Mexico, and Martin A. Threet for the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District et al., defendants. Solicitor General Rankin and George S. Swarth filed a memorandum for the United States.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motions to amend the bill of complaint are denied. The motion to dismiss is granted and the bill of complaint is dismissed because of the absence of the United States as an indispensable party.