California Vs. Washington

California vs Washington

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Nov-10-1958

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/99334

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/99334
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Nov-10-1958
Case Number: 358 U.S. 64
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

California

Respondent

Washington

Excerpt

california v. washington - 358 u.s. 64 (1958) u.s. supreme court california v. washington, 358 u.s. 64 (1958) 358 u.s. 64 california v. washington. on motion for leave to file bill of complaint. no. 12, original. argued october 15-16, 1958. decided november 10, 1958. motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied. wallace howland, assistant attorney general of california, argued the cause for plaintiff. with him on the brief were edmund g. brown, attorney general, and leonard m. sperry, jr., deputy attorney general. john j. o'connell, attorney general of washington, and thomas r. garlington argued the cause for defendant. with them on the brief was franklin k. thorp, assistant attorney general. louis j. lefkowitz, attorney general, and paxton blair, solicitor general, filed a brief for the state of new york, as amicus curiae, in support of the position taken by the plaintiff in its complaint. per curiam. the motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied. u.s. const., amend. xxi, 2; indianapolis brewing co. v. liquor control commission, 305 u.s. 391 ; joseph s. finch & co. v. mckittrick, 305 u.s. 395 ; mahoney v. joseph triner corp., 304 u.s. 401 ; state board of california v. young's market co., 299 u.s. 59 . page 358 u.s. 64, 65

Full Judgment

CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON - 358 U.S. 64 (1958)
U.S. Supreme Court CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON, 358 U.S. 64 (1958) 358 U.S. 64

CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT.
No. 12, Original.
Argued October 15-16, 1958.
Decided November 10, 1958.

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied.

Wallace Howland, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and Leonard M. Sperry, Jr., Deputy Attorney General.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Thomas R. Garlington argued the cause for defendant. With them on the brief was Franklin K. Thorp, Assistant Attorney General.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, filed a brief for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in support of the position taken by the plaintiff in its complaint.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied. U.S. Const., Amend. XXI, 2; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U.S. 391 ; Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 ; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401 ; State Board of California v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59 .

Page 358 U.S. 64, 65

Same Parties California vs Washington Same Subject Land Acquisition