Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Arizona Vs. California

Arizona vs California

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-03-1963
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100568

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
383 U.S. 268
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arizona

Respondent

California

Excerpt

arizona v. california - 383 u.s. 268 (1963) u.s. supreme court arizona v. california, 383 u.s. 268 (1966) arizona v. california no. 8, original decided june 3, 1963 decree entered march 9, 1964 amended decree entered february 28, 1966 383 u.s. 268 opinion reported: 373 u. s. 373 u.s. 546; decree reported: 376 u. s. 376 u.s. 340. order the joint motion to amend article vi of the decree in this case entered on march 9, 1964, 376 u. s. 376 u.s. 340, 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 page 383 u. s. 269 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.

Full Judgment

Arizona v. California - 383 U.S. 268 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. California, 383 U.S. 268 (1966)

Arizona v. California

No. 8, Original

Decided June 3, 1963

Decree entered March 9, 1964

Amended Decree entered February 28, 1966

383 U.S. 268

Opinion reported: 373 U. S. 373 U.S. 546; decree reported: 376 U. S. 376 U.S. 340.

ORDER

The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, 376 U. S. 376 U.S. 340, 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

Page 383 U. S. 269

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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial