Supreme Court of the United States, 1966

Arizona v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 28, 1966 · The Chief Justice Mr. Justice Fortas

383 U.S. 268; 86 S. Ct. 924; 15 L. Ed. 2d 743; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2995 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mark Wilmer for plaintiff., Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Northcutt Ely, Special Assistant Attorney General, Burton J. Gindler and David B. Stanton, Deputy Attorneys General, C. Emerson Duncan II, Jerome C. Muys, Roy H. Mann, Earl Redwine, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox, James H. Carter, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., John H. Lauten, H. Kenneth Hutchinson, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Edward T. Butler, Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General of Nevada, and Robert E. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, for defendants., Solicitor General Marshall for the United States, intervenor.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
Lewis Ex Rel. National Semiconductor Corp. v. Sporck (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1985)
Yellen v. Hickel (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1972)
Arizona v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 2006)
USA & Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. State of Idaho (Idaho 2019)
Spradling v. Texas; And Dunn v. Texas (Supreme Court of the United States 1982)
Arizona v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
Arizona v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1978)
State v. Simpson (Fla. 1977)
Callendar v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Arizona v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Ordered.

The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, is hereby granted and Article VI of said decree is hereby amended to read as follows:

VI. Within three years from the date of this decree [March 9, 1964], the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply simi *269 lar information, within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.