Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Oklahoma Vs. New Mexico

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 17, 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
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

31 entries 3 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Pierce Vs. Underwood US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988
  2. Blum Vs. Stenson US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1984
  3. Colorado Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1943
  4. Oklahoma v. New
    Search
  5. Mexico - 501 U.S. 221 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Oklahoma v. New
    Search
  6. Mexico, 501 U.S. 221 (1991) Oklahoma v. New
    Search
  7. clearly exists in this case, and since there is no claim that the issue has not been properly presented. Arizona v. California
    Search
  8. other provisions in the Compact appear to focus on stored water, not reservoir capacity. For example, Article V sets
    Search
  9. Article v. gives
    Search
  10. Arizona v. California
    Search
  11. U. S. 546 , 373 U. S. 564 (1963) (quoting Colorado v. Kansas
    Search
  12. U. S. 383 , 320 U. S. 392 (1943), and Nebraska v. Wyoming
    Search
  13. Page 501 U. S. 242 v. The
    Search
  14. IV. We previously have pointed out that a congressionally approved compact is both a contract and a statute, Texas v. New
    Search
  15. to legislative history and other extrinsic material when required to interpret a statute which is ambiguous. Green v. Bock
    Search
  16. have on occasion looked to evidence regarding the negotiating history of other interstate compacts. See, e.g., Texas v. New
    Search
  17. use -- even though it clearly originated above Conchas Dam. A compact is a contract among its parties. Texas v. New
    Search
  18. Texas v. New
    Search
  19. Article v. with
    Search
  20. interpretation that all provisions of a Compact must be read together in a meaningful manner. See United States v. Utah
    Search
  21. expressed their intent on a matter in unambiguous terms, we should not substitute our will for their purpose. Texas v. New
    Search
  22. Hobbs Trailers v. J.T
    Search
  23. gave its blessing to this Compact, and, in doing so, codified the agreement as federal law. As we stated in Arizona v. California
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Oklahoma v. New
    Search
  25. Article v. sets
    Search
  26. Article v. gives
    Search
  27. and Nebraska v. Wyoming
    Search
  28. Green v. Bock
    Search
  29. Article v. with
    Search
  30. See United States v. Utah
    Search
  31. Kentucky v. Indiana
    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