By applying the rules of evidence, the judge determines what information can be presented in the courtroom. So that witnesses can speak to their own knowledge and not alter their account based on what they hear another witness say, they are kept away from the courtroom until they testify. A court reporter keeps a record of court proceedings, and a deputy clerk keeps records of each person who testifies and of any documents, photographs or other evidence presented as evidence. 1047 37 U.S. to 737. Chief Justice Taney disagreed because he believed it was not about property in the ground, but about sovereignty and jurisdiction, and therefore about politics. Id., pp. 752–53. For various reasons, it should be noted that a dispute between private parties that respects the soil or jurisdiction of two States to which neither State is a party does not fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Fowler v.
Lindsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 411 (1799). For more recent border cases, see United States v. Maine (Rhode Island and New York Boundary Case), 469 U.S. 504 (1985); United States v. Louisiana (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case), 470 U.S. 93 (1985); United States v. Maine, 475 U.S. 89 (1986); Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 336 (1990); Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S.
73 (1992). Modern types of interstate lawsuits. – Starting with Missouri v. Illinois & Chicago District, 1048, which maintained jurisdiction over an injunction to restrict the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi, water rights, use of water resources, etc. became a growing source of interstate lawsuits. Such costumes were particularly common in Western states1049, where water is even more of a treasure than elsewhere, but they were not limited to one region. In Kansas v. Colorado,1050, the Court established the principle of equitable distribution of river or water resources among the conflicting interests of the State.
In New Jersey v. New York, 1051, where New Jersey sought to prohibit the diversion of water in the Hudson River watershed to New York in a manner that reduced the flow of the Delaware River into New Jersey, violated its shad fishery, and negatively increased the salinity of Delaware, Justice Holmes stated for the Court: „A river is more than a convenience, it`s a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it. New York has the physical power to cut off all water within its jurisdiction. But it is clear that the exercise of such power to destroy the interests of inferior states cannot be tolerated. And on the other hand, New Jersey could not be allowed to require New York to completely surrender its power so that the river could flow to it relentlessly. Both states have real and substantial interests in the river, which must be reconciled as much as possible. 1052 The Problem of Enforcement: Virginia v. West Virginia.—A very important issue in interstate litigation is the enforcement of the court`s judgment once it has been registered. With certain types of combinations, this problem may not occur, and if it does, it can easily be solved.
Therefore, a judgment that puts a state in possession of a disputed territory is generally self-executing. But if the losing state were to resist execution, recalcitrant state officials would be liable, as individuals, to civil or criminal prosecution in federal courts. Similarly, an injunction against state officials as individuals may be enforced under civil or criminal law. On the other hand, decisions that oblige a State to act positively in its capacity to govern present the question of enforcement in a more serious form. The issue arose directly in the long and highly controversial case between Virginia and West Virginia regarding how much of West Virginia`s original national debt was owed by West Virginia after its separate admission to the Union under a treaty under which West Virginia assumed a portion of the debt. Once the evidence has been heard, each party makes a closing argument. In a jury trial, the judge explains the law applicable to the case and the decisions the jury must make. The jury is generally asked to determine whether the defendant is in any way liable for damages to the plaintiff, and then to determine the amount of damages that the defendant must pay. If the case is heard by a judge without a jury, called a bench trial, the judge decides these issues or orders some sort of remedy to the winning party.
In civil proceedings, the plaintiff must satisfy the jury on a „balance of probabilities“ (i.e., more likely than not) that the defendant is liable for the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In general, in ruling on the jurisdiction of these actions, as well as those relating to boundaries and the diversion or pollution of water resources, the Supreme Court has guided the liberal interpretation of the phrase „controversies between two or more states“ used in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 1060 and confirmed by the dictum of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 1061 on jurisdiction because of the parties to a case that „what might be the subject of controversy is completely irrelevant. In any event, those parties have a constitutional right to bring proceedings before the Courts of the European Union. 1062 The concept of private law in common law countries is somewhat broader in that it also covers private relations between governments and individuals or other bodies. That is, relations between governments and individuals based on the law of contract or tort are governed by private law and are not considered to be governed by public law. 1063,291 U.S. 286 (1934). The Court of Justice has refused in recent years, because of a significant problem of litigation, to authorise the lodging of initial claims in which the parties could settle their disputes before other courts, even in cases where the jurisdiction to hear the dispute in question is exclusively original. Arizona v.
New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976) (subject to legal proceedings brought by individuals); California vs. West Virginia, 454 U.S. 1027 (1981). But in Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 USA 73 (1992), the Court`s reluctance to exercise trial jurisdiction contradicted the „intransigent wording“ of 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), which gave the Court „first and exclusive jurisdiction“ over these types of actions. The extension of the federal judiciary to interstate disputes and the transfer of initial jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for state-involved lawsuits have their origins in experience. Prior to independence, disputes between colonies claiming Charter territorial rights were settled by the Privy Council. According to the Articles of Confederation, Congress was „the last resort“ to „resolve all disputes and disputes. between two or more States in respect of boundaries, jurisdiction or any other reason“ and the establishment of ad hoc arbitral tribunals to settle and finally adjudicate such disputes. When the Philadelphia Convention met in 1787, ten states were involved in serious disputes over boundaries, lands, and river rights.1042 It is hardly surprising, then, that in the first 60 years of the State Convention there were only boundary disputes,1043 or that such disputes accounted for the largest number of lawsuits between states.
Since 1900, however, due to the increasing mobility of population and wealth, as well as the effects of technology and industrialization, other types of cases have become increasingly common. Other types of inter-State litigation in respect of which the Court has had jurisdiction include actions brought by a State as the beneficiary of the debt obligations of another State to recover them,1053 by Virginia v. West Virginia to determine the proportion of the public debt of the original State of Virginia owed by the latter to the former,1054 by Arkansas to prohibit Texas from interfering with the performance of a contract of a Texas foundation, to contribute. the construction of a new hospital at the University of Arkansas Medical Center,1055 one state against another to enforce a treaty between the two,1056 a fair action between the states to determine the residence of a deceased person for estate tax purposes,1057 and a lawsuit by two states to prevent a third from enforcing a natural gas measure, which purported to restrict the interstate flow of natural gas. by the state in case of disability.1058 In Texas v.