Case ID: us_350/html/0880-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 10,
    Original.
    Arizona v. California et al.
    
      Robert Morrison, Attorney General, John H. Moeur, John P. Frank, John Geoffrey Will, Burr Sutter, Perry Ling, Theodore Kiendl and Franklin M. Schultz for the State of Arizona, complainant. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Northcutt Ely, Robert L. McCarty, Prentiss Moore and Gilbert F. Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, Charles E. Corker, Howard L. Friedman, Burton J. Gindler, James B. McKenney, John R. Alexander and George Brody, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of California, Francis E. Jenney for the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Harry W. Horton and R. L. Knox, Jr. for the Imperial Irrigation District, Earl Redwine for the Coachella Valley County Water District, James H. Howard, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Donald M. Keith, Alan Patten and Frank P. Doherty for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Roger Arnebergh for the City of Los Angeles, and T. B. Cosgrove for the City of San Diego, defendants. Attorney General Brownell for the United States, and Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General, and W. T. Mathews and Wm. J. Kane, Special Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Nevada, interveners. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, and 
      Hatfield Chilson, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Colorado et al., Richard Robinson, Attorney General, and Fred E. Wilson for the State of New Mexico, E. R. Callister, Attorney General, and Dennis McCarthy, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Utah, and George F. Guy, Attorney General, for the State of Wyoming.
   This case is set for argument on the exceptions to the report of the Special Master and is assigned for hearing at the end of the call for the week beginning December 5. A total of four hours is allowed for oral argument. The motion of the United States for determination of certain legal points is denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these questions.