TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The State of Wisconsin v. The State of Illinois State of Michigan v

Wisconsin v. Ill. State of Mich. v, 279 U.S. 821 (1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 22, 1929
Docket
Nos. 7, original
Citations
279 U.S. 821

Opinion

279 U.S. 821 49 S.Ct. 349 73 L.Ed. 976

The STATE OF WISCONSIN et al., complainants, v. The STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.; STATE OF MICHIGAN, complainant, v. The STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.; STATE OF NEW YORK, complainant. v. STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.

No. 7, original.

No. 11, original.

No. 12, original.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 1929 1

and 2

Messrs. Wm. J. Morgan and Ralph M. Hoyt, both of Milwaukee, Wis., Herman L. Ekern, of Madison, Wis., C. L. Hilton, of St. Paul, Minn., E. C. Turner and C. C. Crabbe, both of Columbus, Ohio, Geo. W. Woodruff, of Philadelphia, Pa., Newton D. Baker, of Cleveland, Ohio, John W. Reynolds, of Madison, Wis., R. T. Jackson, of Mineral Point, Wis., G. A. Youngquist, of St. Paul, Minn., for the State of Wisconsin and others.

3

Messrs. Edw. J. Brundage, Wm. F. Mulvihill, Morton S. Cressy, Edmond D. Adcock, Oscar E. Carlstrom, H. A. Brouillet, Jas. Hamilton Lewis, Geo. F. Barrett, and Louis J. Behan, all of Chicago, Ill., J. T. Kenworthy and Cyrus E. Dietz, both of Rock Island, Ill., Hugh S. Johnson, of Springfield, Ill., Maclay Hoyne, of Chicago, Ill., and James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the State of Illinois and others.

4

Messrs. Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., A. B. Dougherty, William W. Potter, and Arthur E. Kidder, all of Lansing, Mich., for the State of Michigan.

5

Messrs. Hamilton Ward, Atty. Gen., of New York City, Albert J. Danaher, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Albany, N. Y., Albert Ottinger, of New York City, R. J. Le Boeuf, Jr., of Albany, N. Y., and Nathan L. Miller, of New York City, for the State of New York.

6

Messrs. North T. Gentry, of Columbia, Mo., Daniel N. Kirby, of St. Louis, Mo., and Cornelius Lynde, of Chicago, Ill., for intervener State of Missouri.

7

Mr. F. M. Thompson, of Nashville, Tenn., for intervener State of Tennessee.

8

Mr. F. E. Daugherty, of Louisville, Ky., for intervener State of Kentucky.

9

Mr. Percy Saint, of New Orleans, La., for intervener State of Louisiana.

10

Mr. H. W. Applegate, of Little Rock, Ark., for intervener State of Arkansas.

11

Mr. Rush H. Knox, of Jackson, Miss., for intervener State of Mississippi.

12

Motion of the City of Chicago for leave to intervene denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2010: 120102026peak 2010 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. South Carolina v. North Carolina558 U.S. 256 (2010)

Most recent

  1. South Carolina v. North Carolina558 U.S. 256 (2010)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 821 (1929) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list