Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/268/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/268/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Arizona v. California, 383 U.S. 268 (1966)
Arizona v. California
No. 8, Original
Decided June 3, 1963
Decree entered March 9, 1964
Amended Decree entered February 28, 1966
383 U.S. 268
Opinion reported: 373 U. S. 373 U.S. 546; decree reported: 376 U. S. 376 U.S. 340.
ORDERED.
The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, 376 U. S. 376 U.S. 340, 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 similar
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.
