VIRGINIA
v.
MARYLAND

U.S. | 1957-12-16
No. 12
355 U.S. 269 Supreme Court of the United States (1957) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 2 L. Ed. 2d 257 · 78 S. Ct. 327 · 1957 U.S. LEXIS 4 · SCDB 1957-027
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The Court having heard oral argument by the Attorneys General of the States and having considered the printed briefs of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint should be granted. The State of Maryland is directed to file an answer to the bill of complaint within 60 days and process is ordered to issue accordingly.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Jimenez v. Barber, 252 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1958)
    …ined an order from this court staying his deportation until further order of this court. Jimenez v. Barber, 9 Cir., 226 F. 2d 449. We thereafter affirmed the judgment dismissing the action. Jimenez v. Barber, 9 Cir., 235 F. 2d 922, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 327. On January 13, ,1958, Barber notified Jimenez that he must surrender for deportation on January 21, 1958. Jimenez thereupon filed with Barber, for transmission to the Board of Immigration Appeals, a motion to reopen appellant’s case and for a stay…
  • Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56 (U.S. 2003)
    …ursuant to the Constitution’s Compact Clause. See generally Wharton, 153 U. S., at 165-173. This case marks the second time Virginia sought leave to file an original action against Maryland concerning Potomac River rights. See Virginia v. Maryland, 355 U. S. 269 (1957) (per curiam). In the earlier fray, the Special Master persuaded the States to settle their dispute. They entered into a new compact, which superseded the 1785 Compact but specifically preserved the rights delineated in Article Seventh. See Po…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw