IDAHO EX REL. ANDRUS, GOVERNOR, ET AL.
v.
OREGON 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.
Idaho sought the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to establish its entitlement to an equitable share of the anadromous fishery in the Columbia River Basin, claiming it was being denied access to upriver fish stocks. The Supreme Court granted Idaho leave to file its complaint to the extent of seeking a declaration of its equitable portion and appropriate relief, but denied the motion in all other respects, directing Oregon and Washington to respond within 60 days while reserving the question of whether the United States was an indispensable party.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The Court has considered the written submissions of the parties and heard oral argument by the Attorneys General of the States with respect to the motion of the State of Idaho for leave to file a bill of complaint. It having been concluded that the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction of this case to-the extent that the complaint prays that the Court declare that the State of Idaho is entitled to an equitable portion of the upriver anadromous fishery of the Columbia River Basin and that the Court determine Idaho’s equitable portion based on the evidence and award costs and appropriate incidental relief, the motion for leave to file is hereby granted to that extent. The motion is in all other respects denied. This order is not a judgment that the bill of complaint, to the extent that permission to file is granted, states a claim upon which relief may be granted. This order also leaves open the question of the indispensability of the United States as a party for decision after evidence, in the event the United States does not enter its appearance in the case. The States of Oregon and Washington are directed to file answers to the bill of complaint or to otherwise plead within 60 days and process is ordered to issue accordingly.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon, 444 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1980)…in Idaho and the Pacific Ocean. We granted Idaho leave to file its complaint, but left open the questions whether that complaint stated a claim upon which relief may be granted and whether the United States was an indispensable party to the action. 429 U. S. 163 (1976). We later referred the action to a Special Master. 431 U. S. 952 (1977). On February 2, 1979, the Special Master recommended that Idaho’s action be dismissed for failure to join the United States, but that the dismissal be without prejudice t…
-
Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon, 462 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1983)…974 and 1977. In the years since 1973, there has been some sport fishing of all three runs. C In 1976, the Court granted Idaho leave to file its complaint requesting an equitable apportionment of anadromous fish in the Columbia-Snake River system. 429 U. S. 163. The matter was referred to a Special Master, the Honorable Jean S. Breitenstein, Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. See 431 U. S. 952 (1977). The Special Master initially recommended that the suit be dismisse…
-
Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon, 431 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1977)…of Special Master in this case becomes vacant during a recess of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court. [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 429 U. S. 163.]…