ARIZONA
v.
CALIFORNIA ET AL.
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.
Arizona v. California involved a dispute among Arizona, California, and Nevada over water rights to the Colorado River's mainstream, with the Supreme Court amending its decree to require the three states and the Secretary of the Interior to submit lists of their claimed water rights within three years, with provisions for court determination of those rights if the parties could not reach agreement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Ordered.
The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, is hereby granted and Article VI of said decree is hereby amended to read as follows:
VI. Within three years from the date of this decree [March 9, 1964], the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply similar information, within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Simpson, 347 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1977)…, 6 Coke’s Third Institutes ¶ 79, at 175 (1809) with Reg. v. Vincent, 9 Car. & P. 91, 173 Eng.Rep. 754 (1839). . Reg. v. Vincent, supra note 5 at 756, 62; Reg. v. Graham, 16 Cox C.C. 420 (1888). . We do not read Callender v. Florida, 383 U.S. 270, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 749 (1966), to declare the statute to be facially unconstitutional. The restrictive construction we now make saves the statute from similar future dispositions.…
-
Callendar v. State, 184 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…he United States Supreme Court in these causes with the request that said court reexamine its opinions and mandates in light of said opinion and clarify the action, if any, which the Florida Supreme Court was required to take. On February 28, 1966, 86 S.Ct. 924, the Supreme Court of the United States entered a per curiam order recalling said mandate issued by that court to the Supreme Court of Florida on May 21, 1965, and vacated the judgment entered by it on April 26, 1965, and also vacated the writ of ce…
-
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1963)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence