Wisconsin Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.; Michigan Et Al. v. Same; And New York Et Al. v. Same

Supreme Court

Wisconsin Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.; Michigan Et Al. v. Same; And New York Et Al. v. Same

287 U.S. 578, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 506, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 70

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 19, 1932

DocketNos. 5, 8, and 9, Original

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 U.S. 578 (Wisconsin Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.; Michigan Et Al. v. Same; And New York Et Al. v. Same) 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

Wisconsin Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.; Michigan Et Al. v. Same; And New York Et Al. v. Same, 287 U.S. 578, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 506, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 70 (1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon consideration of the return of the defendants in the above-entitled causes to the rule issued October 10, 1932, requiring them to show cause why they have not taken appropriate steps to effect compliance with the requirements of the decree of this Court in these causes dated April 21, 1930 (281 U. S. 696), and of the argument had thereon,

It is ordered that these causes be referred to Edward F. McClennen, Esquire, as a Special Master, with directions and authority to make summary inquiry and to report to the Court on or before April 1, 1933,

(1) as to the causes of the delay in obtaining approval of the construction of controlling works in the Chicago River and the steps which should now be taken to secure such approval and prompt construction;

(2) as to the causes of the delay in providing for the construction of the Southwest Side Treatment Works, and the steps which should now be taken for such construction or, in case of a change in site, for the construction of an adequate substitute;

(3) as to the financial measures on the part of the Sanitary District or the State of Illinois which are reasonable and necessary in order to carry out the decree of this Court.

[This order also authorized the Special Master to employ clerical help; to fix times and places for taking evidence; to issue subpoenas to witnesses, including those of *579 his own selection, and to administer oaths. There were other provisions as to the printing and hearing of his report; as to the-fixing and charging of his pay and allowances; and permitting another appointment by the Chief Justice in case of a failure to accept or a vacancy during recess.]

Messrs. Henry N. Benson, Attorney General of Minnesota, Gilbert Bettman, Attorney General of Ohio, and Raymond T. Jackson, with whom Messrs. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Herbert H. Naujoks, Assistant Attorney General, Herman L. Ekern, and Paul W. Voorhies, Attorney General of Michigan, were on the brief, for plaintiffs. Messrs. William Rothmann and Joseph B. Fleming, with whom Messrs. Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of Illinois, and Frank Johnston, Jr., were on the brief, for defendants.

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

Upon consideration of the return of the defendants in the above-entitled causes to the rule issued October 10, 1932, requiring them to show cause why they have not taken appropriate steps to effect compliance with the requirements of the decree of this Court in these causes dated April 21, 1930 (281 U. S. 696), and of the argument had thereon,

It is ordered that these causes be referred to Edward F. McClennen, Esquire, as a Special Master, with directions and authority to make summary inquiry and to report to the Court on or before April 1, 1933,

(1) as to the causes of the delay in obtaining approval of the construction of controlling works in the Chicago River and the steps which should now be taken to secure such approval and prompt construction;

(2) as to the causes of the delay in providing for the construction of the Southwest Side Treatment Works, and the steps which should now be taken for such construction or, in case of a change in site, for the construction of an adequate substitute;

(3) as to the financial measures on the part of the Sanitary District or the State of Illinois which are reasonable and necessary in order to carry out the decree of this Court.

[This order also authorized the Special Master to employ clerical help; to fix times and places for taking evidence; to issue subpoenas to witnesses, including those of *579 his own selection, and to administer oaths. There were other provisions as to the printing and hearing of his report; as to the-fixing and charging of his pay and allowances; and permitting another appointment by the Chief Justice in case of a failure to accept or a vacancy during recess.]

Messrs. Henry N. Benson, Attorney General of Minnesota, Gilbert Bettman, Attorney General of Ohio, and Raymond T. Jackson, with whom Messrs. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Herbert H. Naujoks, Assistant Attorney General, Herman L. Ekern, and Paul W. Voorhies, Attorney General of Michigan, were on the brief, for plaintiffs. Messrs. William Rothmann and Joseph B. Fleming, with whom Messrs. Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of Illinois, and Frank Johnston, Jr., were on the brief, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 U.S. 578, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 506, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisconsin-et-al-v-illinois-et-al-michigan-et-al-v-same-and-new-york-scotus-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack