STATE OF OKLAHOMA
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, UNITED STATES, INTERVENER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Oklahoma and Texas disputed the location of their state boundary along the Red River, with the United States intervening to assert its interest. The Supreme Court granted intervention motions from various oil companies claiming interests in disputed lands, set the case for hearing on questions regarding whether an earlier treaty decree was conclusive on boundary location, and appointed a commissioner to take testimony on governmental practice regarding the 1819 Treaty between the United States and Spain that originally established the boundary.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Order Granting Leave to File Petitions in Intervention.
The motions of - the Judsonia Developing Association,, Burk Divide Oil Company No. 2 and others, Burk Divide Oil Company No. 3 and others, and Mellish Consolidated Placer Oil Company, for leave to file petitions in intervention herein, are hereby granted; and similar leave is granted to any and all other parties claiming any title to or interest in the lands in the possession of the Receiver herein by virtue of the orders of April 1, 1920, and June 7, 1920.
Order Setting Cause down for .Hearing upon Certain Questions of Law, Directing the Taking of Testimony and Appointing Commissioner,
On consideration of the motion of the United States and the State of Oklahoma, requesting that this cause be set down for hearing at an early day upon certain questions of law, and of the response of the State of Texas to said motion, this day presented,
It is ordered that this cause be and-it is hereby set down for hearing on the fifteenth day of November, 1920, upon the following questions of law, to wit:
(1) Is the decree of this court in United States y. The State of Texas, 162 U. S. 1, final and conclusive upon the parties to this cause in so far as it declares that the Treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain fixed the boundary along the south bank of Red River?
(2) If said decree is not conclusive, then did the Treaty of 1819, construed in the light of pertinent public documents and acts, fix the boundary along the mid-channel of. Red River or along the south bank of said river?
It is further ordered that the parties be permitted to take and present testimony in respect of the governmental practice on the part of all governments and States, concerned at the time, bearing upon the construction and effect of said Treaty as to the second question above stated.
The evidence in chief of the United States and the State of Oklahoma shall be taken and closed on or before August 15, 1920; the evidence in chief of the State of Texas shall be taken and closed on or before October 1, 1920; and rebuttal testimony on the part of the United States and the State of Oklahoma shall be taken and closed on or before October 15, 1920. The evidence in each case to be taken on seven days’ notice, unless notice is waived.
Ernest Knaebel, Esq., of the District of Columbia, is hereby appointed as Commissioner to take the said evidence and report the same to the court, without findings or conclusions.1
Mr. Knaebel could not serve and Frederick S. Tyler, Esq., of the District of Columbia, was appointed by order of the Chief Justice, June 30, 1920.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1981)…We have often permitted the United States to intervene in appropriate cases where distinctively federal interests, best presented by the United States itself, are at stake. See, e. g., Arizona v. California, 344 U. S. 919 (1953); Oklahoma v. Texas, 253 U. S. 465 (1920). Third, the Master recommended that we grant the motion of 17 pipeline companies to intervene as plaintiffs. Given that the Tax is directly imposed on the owner of imported gas and that the pipelines most often own the gas, those companies h…
-
United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1950)…roversies between sovereigns which involve issues of high public importance, has always been liberal in allowing full development of the facts. United States v. Texas, 162 U. S. 1; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 144, 145, 147; Oklahoma v. Texas, 253 U. S. 465, 471. If there were a dispute as to the meaning of documents and the answer was to be found in diplomatic correspondence, contemporary construction, usage, international law and the like, introduction of evidence and a full hearing would be essentia…
-
Rector v. United States, 20 F.2d 845 (8th Cir. 1927)…had large choice of the method and means of doing so. For example, it could have elothed its receiver with power to and have ordered him to prosecute such development himself. Oklahoma v. Texas, 252 U. S. 373, 374, 40 S. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. 619; Id., 253 U. S. 465 and 469, 40 S. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. 1015, 1017; Id., 256 U. S. 602, 41 S. Ct. 539, 65 L. Ed. 1114. It could have conditioned such development upon advance of the expenses by the existing lessee (Oklahoma v. Texas, 256 U. S. 603, 41 S. Ct. 539, 65 L.…1 / 5
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Texas, 162 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1896)
- State of Okla. v. State of Tex., 252 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1920)