Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

idaho Vs. Evans

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1983

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

60 entries 1 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Connecticut Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1931
  2. U.S. 1017 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Idaho v. Evans
    Search
  3. U.S. 1017 (1983) Idaho v. Evans
    Search
  4. Sohappy v. Smith
    Search
  5. is applicable to this dispute. Although that doctrine has its roots in water rights litigation, see Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  6. the resource being apportioned. The fact that no State has a preexisting legal right of ownership in the fish, Hughes v. Oklahoma
    Search
  7. decree, such legal rights must give way in some circumstances to broader equitable considerations. See Colorado v. New
    Search
  8. a State may not preserve solely for its own inhabitants natural resources located within its borders. See Philadelphia v. New
    Search
  9. New England Power Co. v. New
    Search
  10. to conserve and even to augment the natural resources within their borders for the benefit of other States. Colorado v. New
    Search
  11. is based on broad and flexible equitable concerns, rather than on precise legal entitlements, see Colorado v. New
    Search
  12. the Special Master found that the formulation of a workable decree is impossible, we must disagree. See Washington v. Fishing
    Search
  13. original jurisdiction must prove by clear and convincing evidence some real and substantial injury or damage. Colorado v. New
    Search
  14. New Jersey v. New
    Search
  15. of the fish destined to pass over the Bonneville. See Sohappy v. Smith
    Search
  16. Washington v. Fishing
    Search
  17. The Court in Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  18. have based apportionment on the consideration of many factors to ensure a fair and equitable allocation. See Colorado v. New
    Search
  19. as does Idaho's entire argument, that Idaho is entitled to those fish that originate in its waters. After Hughes v. Oklahoma
    Search
  20. Id. at 25. No one owns an individual fish until he reduces that fish to possession, Pierson v. Post
    Search
  21. interests in the wildlife within their boundaries, see, e.g., Douglas v. Seacoast
    Search
  22. Missouri v. Holland
    Search
  23. to fish as an interest of sufficient dignity and importance to warrant certain protections. See, e.g., Union Oil Co. v. Oppen
    Search
  24. Guste v. MIV
    Search
  25. Weld v. Hornby
    Search
  26. New Jersey v. New
    Search
  27. United States v. Washington
    Search
  28. manage to land and reduce particular specimens to possession and full ownership. See, e.g., Washington Game Dept. v. Puyallup
    Search
  29. United States v. Washington
    Search
  30. necessary to obtain relief from this Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, see, e.g., Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  31. returning to their spawning grounds in numbers sufficient to perpetuate the species in this river system. Cf. Colorado v. New
    Search
  32. U. S. 589 , 325 U. S. 618 (1945). Connecticut v. Massachusetts
    Search
  33. and Washington in terms of harvest forgone in order to allow a given number of fish to reach Idaho, cf. Nebraska v. Wyoming
    Search
  34. values of the types of fishery -- commercial or sport -- operated by the defendants and by Idaho, cf. Connecticut v. Massachusetts
    Search
  35. U.S. at 414 U. S. 48 . Nevertheless, it is a task that we have recognized as possible, Washington v. Washington
    Search
  36. relief has never provided an excuse for shirking the duty imposed on us by the Constitution. Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon
    Search
  37. at 325 U. S. 616 . The lower federal courts have proved able to grant appropriate relief, e.g., Sohappy v. Smith
    Search
  38. U.S. Supreme Court Idaho v. Evans
    Search
  39. See Colorado v. New
    Search
  40. See Philadelphia v. New
    Search
  41. New England Power Co. v. New
    Search
  42. States. Colorado v. New
    Search
  43. Colorado v. New
    Search
  44. See Washington v. Fishing
    Search
  45. New Jersey v. New
    Search
  46. the Bonneville. See Sohappy v. Smith
    Search
  47. Washington v. Fishing
    Search
  48. After Hughes v. Oklahoma
    Search
  49. Pierson v. Post
    Search
  50. Douglas v. Seacoast
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales