Kentucky v. Indiana Et Al.
Headline: Court orders Indiana to resume and complete the Evansville–Henderson Ohio River bridge, enjoins delays, requires plans and reports, and splits litigation costs with Kentucky.
Holding: The Court ordered Indiana to immediately resume and faithfully perform its 1928 contract to build the Evansville–Henderson Ohio River bridge, enjoined further delays, required plans and reports, and split costs with Kentucky.
- Requires Indiana to promptly resume and complete the Evansville–Henderson bridge.
- Obliges Indiana to file semiannual progress reports starting September 1, 1930.
- Splits litigation costs equally between Indiana and Kentucky.
Summary
Background
The Commonwealth of Kentucky sued the State of Indiana over a contract dated September 12, 1928, calling for Indiana to build a bridge across the Ohio River between Evansville, Indiana, and Henderson, Kentucky. The complaint named the Indiana State Highway Commission and several individual officials. This decree implements the Court’s April 14, 1930 opinion and resolves remaining disputes about who must perform and how the work should proceed.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Indiana must be ordered to stop delaying and to carry out its duties under the 1928 agreement. The Court dismissed the bill as against the named individuals and entered injunctions and directions against the State of Indiana and its highway commission. The decree directs Indiana to immediately resume performance in good faith, finish plans and specifications, and advertise and let construction contracts as soon as Kentucky makes sufficient funds permanently available. The Indiana State Highway Commission is expressly directed to act for the State. Indiana must file semiannual progress reports with the Clerk on September 1 and March 1 beginning September 1, 1930, and the Court retained jurisdiction for any further orders or changes.
Real world impact
If Kentucky provides the promised funds, Indiana is now required to proceed promptly with planning, contracting, and building the Evansville–Henderson bridge under federal-court supervision. The decree creates ongoing oversight through required reports and retained jurisdiction, and it makes the State of Indiana legally obligated to perform the contract covenants. The Court ordered that the costs of this litigation be taxed one-half against Indiana and one-half against Kentucky.
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?