Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Connecticut Vs. Massachusetts

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 24, 1931

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

26 entries 1 linked 25 unlinked
Show
  1. New Jersey Vs. Sargent US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1926
  2. U.S. 660 (1931) U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut v. Massachusetts
    Search
  3. U.S. 660 (1931) Connecticut v. Massachusetts
    Search
  4. the threatened invasion of rights is of serious magnitude and established by clear and convincing evidence. New York v. New
    Search
  5. Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  6. than that generally required to be borne by one seeking an injunction in a suit between private parties. North Dakota v. Minnesota
    Search
  7. ownership, and to permit the appropriation of flowing waters for such purposes as it may deem wise. United States v. Rio
    Search
  8. the same rules of law, that are applied in such states for the solution of similar questions of private right. Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  9. individuals is to be taken into account, it is not to be deemed to have controlling weight. As was shown in Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  10. other relevant facts, this Court will determine what is an equitable apportionment of the use of such waters. Wyoming v. Colorado
    Search
  11. S. 465 , 259 U. S. 470 . The development of what Mr. Justice Brewer, speaking for the Court in Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  12. for the ascertainment of the relative rights of states in respect of interstate waters is illustrated, by Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  13. supra, and Wisconsin v. Illinois
    Search
  14. U. S. 367 . Two of these cases are much like the one at bar. Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  15. the rule of equality of right forbade interference with the existing withdrawals of water in Colorado. In Wyoming v. Colorado
    Search
  16. or presently threatened interference. The facts disclose no basis for relief in respect of that property. New York v. Illinois
    Search
  17. will not be granted against something merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time in the future. New York v. Illinois
    Search
  18. U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut v. Massachusetts
    Search
  19. New York v. New
    Search
  20. United States v. Rio
    Search
  21. and Wisconsin v. Illinois
    Search
  22. Colorado. In Wyoming v. Colorado
    Search
  23. New York v. Illinois
    Search
  24. Kansas v. Colorado
    Search
  25. Wyoming v. Colorado
    Search
  26. North Dakota v. Minnesota
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial