ARIZONA
v.
CALIFORNIA ET AL.

U.S. | 1954-06-01
No. 10
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
347 U.S. 986 Supreme Court of the United States (1954) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 347 U.S. 985
Cited by 7 cases

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.

Synopsis

In a water rights dispute between Arizona and California, the Supreme Court appointed a special master to take evidence, find facts, and recommend a decree for the Court's consideration, with the costs to be apportioned among the parties as the Court would later direct.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

It is ordered that George I. Haight, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, be, and he is hereby, appointed special master in this cause, with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The master is directed to find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law thereon, and to submit the same to this Court with all convenient speed, together with, a draft of the decree recommended by him. The findings, conclusions, and recommended decree of the master shall be subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the Court. The master shall be allowed his actual expenses and a reasonable compensation for his services to be fixed hereafter by the Court. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his stenographic and clerical assistants, and the cost of printing his report shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct. If the appointment herein made of a master is not accepted, or if the place becomes vacant during the recess of the Court, the Senior Associate Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court herein.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1963)
    ….of Los Angeles, City of.San Diego, and County of San Diego. 344 U. S. 919 (1953) (intervention by United States); 347 U. S. 985 (1954) (intervention by Nevada); 350 U. S. 114 (1955) (joinder of Utah and New Mexico). The two orders are reported at 347 U. S. 986 (1954), and 350 U. S. 812 (1955). 364 U. S. 940 (1961). Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1057 (1928), 43 U. S. C. §§ 617-617t. “[The All-American Canal] will end an intolerable situation, under which the Imperial Valley now secures its sole w…
  • Arizona v. California, 350 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1955)
  • Arizona v. California, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2703 (U.S. 1963)
    …(intervention by Nevada). The State of New Mexico and the State of Utah were joined as parties. 350 U. S. 114, 115 (1955). The Court referred the case to George I. Haight, Esquire, and upon his death to Simon H. Rif kind, Esquire, as Special Master. 347 U. S. 986 (1954); 350 U. S. [*151] 812 (1955). On January 16, 1961, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master Rifkind. 364 U. S. 940. On June 3,1963, the Court filed an opinion in the case, 373 U. S. 546, and on March 9, 1964, the Cour…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw