Case: Arizona v. California et al.
Abbreviation: Arizona v. California
Decision Date: 1954-06-01
Docket Number: No. 10
Citation: 347 U.S. 986
Volume: 347
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Arizona v. California et al.
Judges: The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
Pages: 986–987

Head Matter:
No. 10,
Original.
Arizona v. California et al.
Ross F. Jones, Attorney General of Arizona, Howard F. Thompson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, John H. Moeur, Burr Sutter and Perry M. Ling for complainant.
Edmund O. Brown, Attorney General, Northcutt Ely, Robert L. McCarty and Prentiss Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, and Gilbert F. Nelson, George M. Treister, Irving Jaffe and Robert Sterling Wolf, 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 Coa-chella 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 W. T. Mathews, Attorney General, Alan Bible and William J. Kane, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and Geo. P. Annand, William N. Dunseath and John W. Barrett, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of Nevada, interveners.

Opinion:
It is ordered that George I. Haight, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, be, and he is hereby, appointed special master in this cause, with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The master is directed to find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law thereon, and to submit the same to this Court with all convenient speed, together with, a draft of the decree recommended by him. The findings, conclusions, and recommended decree of the master shall be subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the Court. The master shall be allowed his actual expenses and a reasonable compensation for his services to be fixed hereafter by the Court. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his stenographic and clerical assistants, and the cost of printing his report shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court hereafter may direct. If the appointment herein made of a master is not accepted, or if the place becomes vacant during the recess of the Court, the Senior Associate Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court herein.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.