Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Arkansas Vs. Oklahoma

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 11, 1991

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

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

35 entries 1 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Epa Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1976
  2. U.S. 91 (1991) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Arkansas Et Al. V. Oklahoma
    Search
  3. Environmental Protection Agency v. Oklahoma
    Search
  4. Act. Pp.98-114. (a) Where interstate discharge is involved, both federal common law of nuisance, Milwaukee v. Illinois
    Search
  5. U. S. 304 , and an affected State's common law, International Paper Co. v. Ouellette
    Search
  6. factual findings when the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. See generally Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  7. reverse. II Interstate waters have been a font of controversy since the founding of the Nation. E. g., Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  8. This Court has frequently resolved disputes between States that are separated by a common river, see, e. g., Ohio v. Kentucky
    Search
  9. U. S. 335 (1980), that border the same body of water, see, e. g., New York v. New
    Search
  10. Jersey, 256 U. S. 296 (1921), or that are fed by the same river basin, see, e. g., New Jersey v. New
    Search
  11. between a State that introduces pollutants to a waterway and a downstream State that objects. See, e. g., Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  12. of common law tempered by a respect for the sovereignty of the States. Compare id., at 521, with Georgia v. Tennessee
    Search
  13. Illinois v. Milwaukee
    Search
  14. Id., at 107. In Milwaukee v. Illinois
    Search
  15. cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1196 (1985). This Court subsequently endorsed that analysis in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette
    Search
  16. to be a reasonable exercise of the Agency's substantial statutory discretion. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  17. Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , 842845 (1984). V The
    Search
  18. EPA's reasonable, consistently held interpretation of those standards is entitled to substantial deference. Cf. INS v. National
    Search
  19. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  20. if those findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See generally Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  21. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State
    Search
  22. Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  23. Syllabus Arkansas Et Al. V. Oklahoma
    Search
  24. Environmental Protection Agency v. Oklahoma
    Search
  25. Milwaukee v. Illinois
    Search
  26. International Paper Co. v. Ouellette
    Search
  27. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  28. Ohio v. Kentucky
    Search
  29. New York v. New
    Search
  30. New Jersey v. New
    Search
  31. Georgia v. Tennessee
    Search
  32. In Milwaukee v. Illinois
    Search
  33. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  34. Cf. INS v. National
    Search
  35. Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial