CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


CALIFORNIA v. WEST VIRGINIA, 454 U.S. 1027 (1981)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 454 U.S. 1027 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

CALIFORNIA v. WEST VIRGINIA , 454 U.S. 1027 (1981)

454 U.S. 1027

State of CALIFORNIA
v.
State of WEST VIRGINIA
No. 91

Supreme Court of the United States

November 9, 1981

On motion for leave to file bill of complaint.

The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.

Justice STEVENS, dissenting.

The State of California invokes this Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate a controversy with the State of West Virginia arising out of an alleged breach of contract covering athletic contests between two state universities. Congress has provided that this Court's jurisdiction over controversies between two States is exclusive.* Although the Court has explained why it will decline to exercise its nonexclusive jurisdiction over cases in which only one of the parties is a

Page 454 U.S. 1027 , 1028

State, see Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U.S. 493, that explanation is inapplicable to cases in which our jurisdiction is exclusive. The fact that two sovereign States have been unable to resolve this matter without adding to our burdens does not speak well for the statesmanship of either party but does not, in my opinion, justify our refusal to exercise our exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C . 1251(a) (1976 ed., Supp. III). I would grant the motion for leave to file and refer the case to a special master.


Endnotes:

[Footnote *] Title 28 U.S.C. 1251 (1976 ed., Supp. III) provides:

    "(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
    "(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
    "(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
    "(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
    "(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens."