WSPC04714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001813 . . "Arizona considers its statement of Position hOYlt:d-:nf"n'YlQ f";lon hAl"'IO;Y'l :::1Yln ,.~'l"tt.~.,,,, 'PD"~l /"'.nnf'.lllR,1ons ...~............._........._- ----- .~---_.. -..- ---- ----. --{,...l-- ------~._--- and arguments set forth in its various pleadings filed herein unsound and not supported in the law in relation to the proper interpretation of Sections 4(a), 5 and 8 of the Project Act and Articles III and VIII of the Compact." It is unnecessary to attempt a description of the positions taken in that five page document, for a year later, on August l3, 1958, with the trial a few days from closing, Arizona filed a motion with the Special Master for leave to file new pleadings, at variance with the pleadings filed with the Court in 1952 and 1953, and at variance also with the 1957 statement. The motion to file new pleadings was opposed by all parties, on the ground that the Special Master lacks jurisdiction, under the order of reference from the Court, either to grant or to deny the motion. California opposed it also on the additional ground that the issues in the new pleadings had not been tried. The Special Master has not yet ruled on Arizona's motion. At the close of trial he directed all parties to prepare and file, simultaneously, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs. Those were filed April 1, 1959, responses were filed on June l, and rebuttal briefs by some of the parties were filed on June 30, 1959. The case is now under submission to the Special Master, the last word having been spoken and written until the Master asks for argument on issues which..he may designate, or until he submits a draft report to the parties prior to submission to the Court. After opportunity to the parties to be heard on possible modifications of the Master's report, that report will 25.