My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 2:47:47 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 2:07:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropoltan Water District of Southern California, City of San Deigo, And Couty of San Diego Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
State
AZ
Date
7/14/1956
Title
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
8o <br />But we have an action to establiq sh oux, eoxa�i�ract. riS�hts <br />under Artic"i-LeS T*Y"(a) aad 111(b) and ua-der the I mitation <br />- �J. <br />jjct la short,, we have a coli-tract which. Js lir-n1lied b,,yr these <br />-1 v-1 1l shOV-7 eXMW1 Y hOW ill a Llrjrq nt- And <br />the core of your action,. in a word., is to establish tl'.,.e --r-1-ghts <br />of our und-ex- our contraot& fl action was predicated <br />o, the ithe notion. that the case eauld be decided on the assuirmt.-Lon <br />th the Colorado Riimr had beeal di,,tided -for - act-ical -pul.-c- <br />,S,r <br />Doses Fl ttyo basins. <br />'n U as <br />The, Stcata of Caiifomn-ia rals�ed a Whole --aimber of' Quez- 0 <br />wi,lich, a s. contend-ed be decided hcnr e on tb-�e grmuuads that 'Ill <br />of the other sl;attez a be joir d. There TVIO-x-e V'071x,MiROUS <br />brielf"S and Pleadings on 4;hal Whl-Oh 1 regr-et 'CFO SaY YOU lirlilj- 7- . <br />eventually have to look Var-ougla. The re-a-son ith'-at- iz ttfllt <br />California presentekol a whole series of questions-. m;&,iry 0-f" <br />tzhich. if tt4ey r�ajl..y jjer-e irt the case-, vmuld have re-quired <br />the joi he fact U-Iat <br />-K�, er of t,11e Uppe:g- Basiz, s"ates. And V- <br />the Court •a's cb-osen not to j <br />;Gin the uppax-- Basizn, st-s"C"e's m'0ans, <br />I t7ajpj;,, that those issues oould be docided only Wm, the <br />aeoess- <br />W e:f:z <br />ass-amption that-, the U-"Ip,- . stat- 0 Ln amad axi 17 <br />ex ,fie w and evidence shoLi1d reut lute rexcelved <br />was t-me <br />The foreMosv Single ejca.r�jpje of that score <br />Tjje <br />r of the p4exican Treat7- 'jOL, was t a, 11, r on b, <br />Matte <br />Orn:ja j6hat -t: tje r4,-xjcau Treat 11-It--l-pretation r-epaired <br />calif <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.