Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kansas v. Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 11, 2001No. 105 ORIGPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice O’Connor

I agree with the Court’s disposition of this case as to Colorado’s first and fourth exceptions to the Special Master’s Third Report, concerning the award and determination of damages. I therefore join Parts I, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion. I do not concur in Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion because I believe that the award of prejudgment interest to Kansas, coming over half a century after the Arkansas River Compact’s (hereinafter Compact) negotiation and approval, is clearly improper under our precedents.

We are dealing with an interstate compact apportioning the flow of a river…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Board of Comm'rs of Jackson Cty. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. West Virginia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. American Train Dispatchers' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Blau v. LehmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1962

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API