WYOMING
v.
COLORADO
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.
Wyoming sought to hold Colorado in contempt for violating a prior Supreme Court decree regarding water rights, and the Court granted Wyoming's motion to file a petition for contempt while denying Colorado's request for additional evidence regarding return flow from water diversions. The Court directed Colorado to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt by March 25, 1940.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The motion of the State of Wyoming for leave to file a petition for a rule directing the State of Colorado to appear and show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt for the violation of a decree of this Court is granted. The petition presented is ordered filed, and the State of Colorado is directed to show cause, as aforesaid, on or before March 25, 1940. The motion of the State of Colorado that evidence be taken to determine the amount of return flow to the Laramie River from the diversions at the headgates of the meadowland ditches is denied.
Mr. Ewing T. Kerr, Attorney-General of Wyoming, with whom Messrs.- Harold I. Bacheller, Deputy Attorney General, Arthur Kline,'Assistant Attorney General, James A. Greenwood, and W. J. Wehrli were on the brief, for the complainant.
Mr. Byron G. Rogers, Attorney General of Colorado, with whom Messrs. Ralph L. Carr, Governor, Henry E. Lutz, Deputy Attorney General, Shrader P. Howell, Assistant Attorney General, Albert P. Fischer, Robert G. Smith, Lawrence R. Temple, Clifford H. Stone,, 'and Jean S. Breitenstein were on the brief, for the defendant.