California v. Texas

459 U.S. 1096
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 10, 1983
DocketNo. 88
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 459 U.S. 1096 (California v. Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
California v. Texas, 459 U.S. 1096 (1983).

Opinion

Plaintiff having submitted a Notice of Dismissal of Certain Defendants, dated August 12, 1982, and a Notice of Dismissal of an Additional Defendant, dated December 9, 1982, and all par[1097]*1097ties having informed the Special Master that they do not oppose the dismissal of the defendants named in the Notices of Dismissal referred to, and the Special Master having recommended said dismissal by letter dated January 3, 1983, it is ordered that defendants William Rice Lummis, individually; Howard Hughes Gano; Doris Gano Wallace; Annette Gano Gragg; Janet Houstoun Davis; Aileen Lummis Russell; Annette Gano Lummis Neff; Frederick Rice Lummis; Sarah Houstoun Lindsey; Mrs. William Kent Gano, Executrix of the Estate of William Kent Gano; John McIntosh Houstoun; Margot Houstoun (Ritchie); James Wilkin Houstoun; Richard Alexander Houstoun; Southern National Bank of Houston, Independent Executor of the Estate of James Patrick Houstoun, Jr.; George Neff, Executor of the Estate of Annette Gano Lummis; Summa Corp.; Barbara Cameron; Elspeth Depould; Agnes Roberts; and Richard C. Gano, individually and as California General Administrator of the Estate of Howard R. Hughes, Jr., are dismissed from this action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation attached as Exhibit “A” to the Notice of Dismissal of Certain Defendants dated August 12, 1982, said Stipulation providing, inter alia, that each of said defendants (other than Summa Corp.) will be bound by a final judgment of this Court on the issue of domicile at death of Howard R. Hughes, Jr., for state death taxation purposes. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1083.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Green Tree Servicing L.L.C. v. Hoover
2016 Ohio 1169 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Taylor v. Sturgell
553 U.S. 880 (Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 U.S. 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-v-texas-scotus-1983.