ARKANSAS
v.
MISSISSIPPI
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.
The Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to oversee proceedings in a dispute between Arkansas and Mississippi, granting him authority to manage pleadings, conduct proceedings, summon witnesses, and take evidence as necessary. The Court ordered that all costs associated with the Special Master and his staff be shared among the parties in proportions to be determined later, and authorized the Chief Justice to fill any vacancy in the position that might occur during a Court recess.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
It is ordered that Justice Paul C. Reardon (retired) of Boston, Mass., be appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.
The compensation of the Special Master, the allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic, clerical, and legal assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct.
It is further ordered that if the position 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of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court herein. [For earlier order herein, see 456 U. S. 912.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Lojuk v. Bruce Johnson, M.D., 770 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1985)…his right in the prison context, a case we recognize as being closely related to the situation at bar. Likewise, Rennie v. Klein, 462 F.Supp. 1131 (D.N.J.1978), affirmed, 653 F. 2d 836 (3d Cir.1981) {en banc), vacated in light of Youngberg v. Romeo, 458 U.S. 1119, 102 S.Ct. 3506, 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (1982), on remand, 720 F. 2d 266 (3rd Cir.1983) (en banc), involved the forced medication of involuntarily committed mental patients.10 The district court in that case easily found a due process right to refuse treat…
-
Rennie v. Klein, 720 F.2d 266 (3d Cir. 1983)…to control the forcible administration of antipsychotic drugs to involuntarily institutionalized persons. The Supreme Court’s remand of this action specifically directed us to reevaluate our previous holding in light of Youngberg. Rennie v. Klein, 458 U.S. 1119, 102 S.Ct. 3506, 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (1982). Under Youngberg, a court must determine whether “the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person…1 / 2
-
Project Release v. Prevost, 722 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. 1983)…1265. In assessing the constitutional validity of New York procedures in this regard, we find guidance in Rennie v. Klein, [*980] 653 F. 2d 836 (3d Cir.1981) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated and remanded in light of Youngberg v. Romeo, 458 U.S. 1119, 102 S.Ct. 3506, 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (1982). In Rennie v. Klein, 476 F.Supp. 1294, 1309-12 (D.N.J.1979), the district court had found constitutionally deficient the New Jersey procedures pertaining to involuntary patients’ right to refuse treatment,23…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Conway v. United States, 456 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1982)