ILLINOIS v. INDIANA, 330 U.S. 799 (1947)
U.S. Supreme Court
ILLINOIS v. INDIANA, 330 U.S. 799 (1947)330 U.S. 799
The STATE OF ILLINOIS,
complainant,
v.
The STATE OF INDIANA et al.
No. 9, Original.
Supreme Court of the United States
February 17, 1947
The Interim Report of the Special Master, dated September 7, 1946, is approved. The Court finds that the course of procedure set forth in the Interim Report, which the Special Master has followed of entering orders staying further proceedings as to particular defendants upon stipulations received in evidence which in the opinion of the Special Master justify such course, is within the discretion of the Special Master. The Court further finds that the steps set forth in the recommendations of the Special Master in the Interim Report numbered one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven as to procedure for the future disposition of the case, are within the discretion of the Special Master and are ap-
proved as appropriate under the special circumstances of this
case. The Court therefore orders and directs the Special Master to
continue the proceedings in accordance with said recommendations.
The Court further orders that the recommendation of the Special
Master as to the apportionment of costs be adopted and costs to
this date shall be taxed as recommended in the Interim Report. The
objections of the Fruit Growers Express Company to the proposed
apportionment of costs are overruled.
U.S. Supreme Court
ILLINOIS v. INDIANA, 330 U.S. 799 (1947) 330 U.S. 799 The STATE OF ILLINOIS, complainant,v.
The STATE OF INDIANA et al. No. 9, Original. Supreme Court of the United States February 17, 1947 The Interim Report of the Special Master, dated September 7, 1946, is approved. The Court finds that the course of procedure set forth in the Interim Report, which the Special Master has followed of entering orders staying further proceedings as to particular defendants upon stipulations received in evidence which in the opinion of the Special Master justify such course, is within the discretion of the Special Master. The Court further finds that the steps set forth in the recommendations of the Special Master in the Interim Report numbered one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven as to procedure for the future disposition of the case, are within the discretion of the Special Master and are ap- Page 330 U.S. 799, 800 proved as appropriate under the special circumstances of this case. The Court therefore orders and directs the Special Master to continue the proceedings in accordance with said recommendations. The Court further orders that the recommendation of the Special Master as to the apportionment of costs be adopted and costs to this date shall be taxed as recommended in the Interim Report. The objections of the Fruit Growers Express Company to the proposed apportionment of costs are overruled.
