COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF OHIO V. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
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.
Pennsylvania and Ohio challenged West Virginia's apportionment of Ohio River waters in this original jurisdiction dispute between states. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decree allocating the water rights among the states, finding no reason to reconsider its earlier decision despite granting a rehearing due to the case's importance and the full participation of all justices in the oral arguments.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter announced the ruling of. the Court.
An opinion expressing the views of the Court in these cases was announced at the ’last term and a decree was entered then. 262 U. S. 553, 623. - By the Court’s leave, given at that term, a petition for rehearing was filed. The cases had been presented in oral argument three times, but three members of the Court had heard only the last presentation. This, with the importance of the questions involved and the public character of; the litigants, led the Court to grant the rehearing. It was had. two weeks ago.. The cases have been considered again in the light of that presentation, and after this further reflection the Court perceives no ground for disturbing the opinion heretofore announced or the decree entered thereon.
Decree reaffirmed.
The Chief Justice did not participate in the consideration of the cases on the rehearing.
Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Brandéis dissent, for the reasons given in their dissenting opinions at the last term.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
State OF Wis. v. State of Ill. & Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 278 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1929)…ted States, 266 U. S. 405; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125; s. c. 206 U. S. 46; New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 623; 263 U. S. 350; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237. The controversies have taken a very wide range. The exact issue is whether the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago by diverting 8,500 cubic feet from the waters of Lake Michig…
-
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1997)…m regulating interstate transportation or sales for resale of natural gas. See, e. g., Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U. S. 298, 307-310 (1924); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 596-600, reaffirmed on rehearing, 263 U. S. 350 (1923). See generally Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central Ill. Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498, 504-505 (1942) (summarizing prior cases distinguishing between permissible and impermissible state regulation of commerce in natural gas). Thus, the…
-
Liberty Nat. Bank of S.C. v. McINTOSH, 16 F.2d 906 (4th Cir. 1927)…422, 26 L. Ed. 216; Richmond v. Irons, 121 [*910] U. S. 27, 7 S. Ct. 788, 30 L. Ed. 864; Schrader v. Bank, 133 U. S. 67, 10 S. Ct. 238, 33 L. Ed. 564; Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U. S. 684, 17 S. Ct. 209, 41 L. Ed. 598; Hightower v. Bank, 263 U. S. 351, 44 S. Ct. 123, 68 L. Ed. 334; Deweese v. Smith (8th C. C. A.) 106 F. 438, 66 L. R. A. 971. [4] Moreover, upon the Comptroller appointing a receiver of a national bank, the receiver takes possession of the assets of the bank, and assumes control of its operation,…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commonwealth of Pa. v. State of W. Va., 262 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1923)