CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON, 358 U.S. 64 (1958)

U.S. Supreme Court

CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON, 358 U.S. 64 (1958)

358 U.S. 64

CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT.
No. 12, Original.
Argued October 15-16, 1958.
Decided November 10, 1958.

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied.

Wallace Howland, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and Leonard M. Sperry, Jr., Deputy Attorney General.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Thomas R. Garlington argued the cause for defendant. With them on the brief was Franklin K. Thorp, Assistant Attorney General.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, filed a brief for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in support of the position taken by the plaintiff in its complaint.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied. U.S. Const., Amend. XXI, 2; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U.S. 391; Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401; State Board of California v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59.

Page 358 U.S. 64, 65




U.S. Supreme Court

CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON, 358 U.S. 64 (1958)

358 U.S. 64

CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT.
No. 12, Original.
Argued October 15-16, 1958.
Decided November 10, 1958.

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied.

Wallace Howland, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and Leonard M. Sperry, Jr., Deputy Attorney General.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Thomas R. Garlington argued the cause for defendant. With them on the brief was Franklin K. Thorp, Assistant Attorney General.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, filed a brief for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in support of the position taken by the plaintiff in its complaint.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied. U.S. Const., Amend. XXI, 2; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U.S. 391; Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401; State Board of California v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59.

Page 358 U.S. 64, 65

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.