Case: Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al.; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
Abbreviation: Wisconsin v. Illinois
Decision Date: 1958-03-03
Docket Number: No. 2; No. 3; No. 4
Citation: 355 U.S. 944
Volume: 355
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al. ; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
Judges: 
Pages: 944–945

Head Matter:
March 3, 1958.
No. 2,
No. 3,
No. 4,
Original.
Original.
Original.
Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois et al. ; Michigan v. Illinois et al.; and New York v. Illinois et al.
Stewart G. Honeck, Attorney General, and-Roy G. Tulane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Wisconsin; Miles Lord, Attorney General, and Melvin J. Peterson, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of Minnesota; William Saxbe, Attorney General, and Robert E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Ohio ; Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, and Lois G. Forer, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of Pennsylvania; Thomas M. Kavanagh, Attorney General, Samuel J. Torina, Solicitor General, and Nicholas V. Olds, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Michigan; and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and John R. Davison, Solicitor General, for the State of New York, applicants-complainants. Latham, Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, William C. Wines, Assistant Attorney General, Russell W. Root, Lawrence J. Fenlon, Joseph B. Fleming and Thomas M. Thomas for defendants. Frederick M. Rowe entered an appearance for the State of Illinois and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, defendants. Solicitor General Rankin, John F. Davis and David R. Warner filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae, at the invitation of the Court to express the views of the Government with respect to the application and motion. For previous order see 355 U. S. 909.

Opinion:
The application and motion herein are denied, with leave to renew the application and motion with allegations made more definite and certain as a basis for the relief sought.