Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Pennsylvania v. West Virginia

Pa. v. W. Va., 263 U.S. 350 (1923)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1923-12-03
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Van Devanter announced the ruling of. the Court. An opinion expressing the views of the Court in these cases was announced at the ’last term and a decree was entered then. 262 U. S. 553, 623. - By the Court’s leave, given at that term, a petition for rehearing was filed. The cases had been ■ presented ■ in oral argument three times, but three members of the Court had heard only ■ the last presentation.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pennsylvania v. West Virginia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
PENNSYLVANIAv. VIRGINIA,263 U.S. 350(1923)
44 S.Ct. 123
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAv. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.
STATE OF OHIOv. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.
ON REHEARING.
Nos. 15 and 16, Orig., October Term, 1922.
Reargued November 20, 1923.
Decided December 3, 1923.
Decree heretofore made in these cases, reaffirmed, after rehearing.
Mr. John W. DavisandMr. George E. Alter, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for plaintiffs.Mr. Philip P. SteptoeandMr. George M. Hoffheimerfor defendant.
MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER announced the ruling of the Court.
An opinion expressing the views of the Court in these cases was announced at the last term and a decree was entered then.262 U.S. 553,623. By the Court's leave, given at that term, a petition for rehearing was filed. The cases had been presented in oral argument three times, but three members of the Court had heard only the last presentation. This, with the importance of the questions involved and the public character of the litigants, led the Court to grant the rehearing. It was had two weeks ago. The cases have been considered again in the light of that presentation, and after this further reflection the Court perceives no ground for disturbing thePage 351opinion heretofore announced or the decree entered thereon.Decree reaffirmed.

The CHIEF Justice did not participate in the consideration of the cases on the rehearing.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS dissent, for the reasons given in their dissenting opinions at the last term.