Wisconsin v. Illinois
Headline: Court appoints a Special Master to run further proceedings, gather evidence and issue subpoenas, and lets the parties share the Master’s costs as the case moves forward.
Holding: In these cases the Court appointed Judge Albert B. Maris as Special Master with power to set filing rules, manage proceedings, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, take evidence, report, and have expenses charged to the parties.
- A court official can summon witnesses and collect evidence for these cases.
- The Special Master’s actual expenses and related costs may be charged to the parties.
- A pending motion to modify the decree is referred to the Special Master for handling.
Summary
Background
The Court appointed Honorable Albert B. Maris, a senior appellate judge, to serve as Special Master in these cases. The order gives him responsibility to manage further steps in the litigation, including setting the time and conditions for any additional filings. The motion for leave to file a petition to modify the decree was specifically referred to the Special Master for handling.
Reasoning
The Court authorized the Special Master to direct subsequent proceedings and to take actions needed to develop the record. He may summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and receive evidence that is introduced or that he believes it is necessary to call for. The Master is also instructed to submit reports he deems appropriate on the matters he handles. The order permits the Chief Justice to designate a replacement if the Special Master position becomes vacant during a Court recess, giving continuity to the process.
Real world impact
Practically, a court-appointed official will now run much of the procedural work in these cases, collect testimony and documents, and prepare reports for the Court. The Master will be paid his actual expenses, and allowances, assistant compensation, printing costs, and other proper expenses are to be charged against the parties in proportions the Court will later direct. This is a procedural step to organize and fact-find as the litigation continues, not a final decision on the underlying merits of the dispute.
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?