Pennsylvania v. West Virginia
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia; State of Ohio v. State of West Virginia
Opinion
Mr. Justice Van Devanter announced the ruling of. the Court.
An opinion expressing the views of the Court in these cases was announced at the ’last term and a decree was entered then. 262 U. S. 553, 623 . - By the Court’s leave, given at that term, a petition for rehearing was filed. The cases had been ■ presented ■ in oral argument three times, but three members of the Court had heard only ■ the last presentation. This, with the importance of the questions involved and the public character of; the litigants, led the Court to grant the rehearing. It was had. two weeks ago.. The cases have been considered again in the light of that presentation, and after this further reflection the Court perceives no ground for disturbing the *351 opinion heretofore announced or the decree entered thereon.
Decree reaffirmed.
The Chief Justice did not participate in the consideration of the cases on the rehearing.
Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Brandéis dissent, for the reasons given in their dissenting opinions at the last term.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court3
- U.S. Courts of Appeals5
- Federal District Courts4
- State Appellate Courts1
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Tracie Park v. Forest Service of the United States of America
- Volvo North America Corp. v. Men's International Professional Tennis Council
- General Motors Corp. v. Tracy
- Volvo North America Corporation, International Merchandising Corporation, and Proserv, Inc. v. Men's International Professional Tennis Council, M. Marshall Happer, Iii, and Philippe Chatrier, Men's International Professional Tennis Council and M
- Wisconsin v. Illinois
- W. H. Mount v. The Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.