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

1929-04-22
Share:

Headline: Several state governments file original cases against Illinois and others in the Supreme Court; multiple other states seek to join, and the City of Chicago’s request to join was denied.

Holding:

Topics: interstate dispute, state lawsuits, multiple states intervening, Supreme Court original cases

Summary

Background

The document shows that the States of Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York brought original cases against the State of Illinois and other parties, with the matters filed in the Supreme Court on April 22, 1929. A number of additional States — including Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi — sought to intervene in the disputes. The record lists counsel for the various States, and it records that the City of Chicago’s motion for leave to intervene was denied.

Reasoning

The excerpt provided contains only the case caption, lists of lawyers, and entries about intervening States and the denied Chicago motion. It does not include any opinion text, majority reasoning, factual findings, or a Court decision explaining why the Court acted. Because the Court’s analysis and the actual decision text are not present here, we cannot report what legal questions the Justices resolved or how they reasoned from the material supplied.

Real world impact

The limited text does show an interstate dispute involving several State governments and competing requests to join the litigation, but it does not describe any ruling or remedy. The immediate practical effects, who prevailed, and how state or private interests were changed are not stated in the provided excerpt, so the real-world consequences cannot be determined from this text.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases