Kansas v. Colorado — Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

Justice Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part, adhering to reasoning from the Kansas III opinion that prejudgment interest is an appropriate component of damages. He argued that interest should apply to all damages accrued after Colorado knew of its violation in 1969, rather than being limited to damages accruing after the 1985 filing of the complaint. Thomas concurred in part and in the judgment, arguing that neither the Compact nor common law entitled Kansas to any prejudgment interest.