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.
Arizona v. California et al., 1964 — 377 U.S. 926 · caselaw · US
General
Arizona v. California et al.
377 U.S. 926·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 16,
Original.
Arizona v. California et al.
James B. Schnake, Richard J. Daniels, Max O. Truitt, Jr. and Joseph E. Smith for plaintiff. Jack Maxwell Howard, Holloway Jones and Emerson W. Rhyner for the State of California; and George H. Hauerken for Charles L. Harney, Inc., defendants.
[MAJORITY]
The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied. Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1.