FLORIDA v. ALABAMA, 396 U.S. 490 (1970)

U.S. Supreme Court

FLORIDA v. ALABAMA, 396 U.S. 490 (1970)

396 U.S. 490

FLORIDA v. ALABAMA ET AL.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT
No. 37, Orig.
Decided January 28, 1970.

State of Florida's motion for leave to file complaint invoking Court's original jurisdiction fails to state claim warranting exercise of such jurisdiction.

Motion denied.

Claude R. Kirk, Jr., Governor of Florida, and Gerald Mager on the motion.

PER CURIAM.

On January 23, 1970, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a complaint invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court naming 49 other States and Robert Finch, as Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as parties defendant.

The alleged emergent nature of the claims for relief led the Court to give expedited consideration to the motion and proffered complaint and, having examined the complaint, we conclude it fails to state a claim against any of the defendants warranting the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, the motion to accelerate the time for responses to the proffered complaint and the motion for leave to file the proffered complaint are denied.

Page 396 U.S. 490, 491

 


U.S. Supreme Court

FLORIDA v. ALABAMA, 396 U.S. 490 (1970)

396 U.S. 490

FLORIDA v. ALABAMA ET AL.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT
No. 37, Orig.
Decided January 28, 1970.

State of Florida's motion for leave to file complaint invoking Court's original jurisdiction fails to state claim warranting exercise of such jurisdiction.

Motion denied.

Claude R. Kirk, Jr., Governor of Florida, and Gerald Mager on the motion.

PER CURIAM.

On January 23, 1970, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a complaint invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court naming 49 other States and Robert Finch, as Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as parties defendant.

The alleged emergent nature of the claims for relief led the Court to give expedited consideration to the motion and proffered complaint and, having examined the complaint, we conclude it fails to state a claim against any of the defendants warranting the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, the motion to accelerate the time for responses to the proffered complaint and the motion for leave to file the proffered complaint are denied.

Page 396 U.S. 490, 491

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.