Contracts · MBE-tested
Arizona v. California et al.
347 U.S. 985·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
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. 10,
Original.
Arizona v. California et al.
W. T. Mathews, Attorney General, Alan Bible and William J. Kane, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and Geo. P. Annand, William N. Dunseath and John W. Barrett, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of Nevada, intervener. Ross F. Jones, Attorney General, Howard F. Thompson, Special Assistant Attorney General, John H. Moeur, Burr Sutter and Perry M. Ling for the State of Arizona, complainant. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Northcutt Ely, Robert L. McCarty and Prentiss Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, and Gilbert F. Nelson, Irving Jaffe and Robert Sterling Wolf, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of California, Francis E. Jenney for the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Harry W. Horton and R. L. Knox, Jr. for the Imperial Irrigation District, Earl Redwine for the Coachella Valley County Water District, James H. Howard, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Donald M. Keith, Alan Patten and Frank P. Doherty for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Roger Arnebergh for the City of Los Angeles, and T. B. Cosgrove for the City of San Diego, defendants.
[MAJORITY]
The motion of the State of Nevada for leave to intervene is granted.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.