Supreme Court of the United States
State of Florida, Plaintiff v. State of Georgia.
June 27, 2018585 U.S. 803
Summary
Florida challenged Georgia's upstream water consumption under the equitable apportionment doctrine, claiming harm to its Apalachicola oyster industry. The Special Master recommended dismissal, concluding Florida had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that a cap on Georgia's use would redress its injury without binding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding the Special Master applied too strict a standard regarding redressability and that Florida had made a sufficient initial showing that an equitable decree could be fashioned.
Holding
- Redressability standard and Florida's initial showing. Florida made a sufficient initial showing that it can prove redressability, and the Special Master applied too strict a standard by requiring clear and convincing evidence about the details of a remedy at this threshold stage.
Docket 142, Orig.
Cited authorities
- 111 Stat. 2222
- Pub. L. 113-121, § 1051
- 128 Stat. 1259
- 28 U.S.C. § 1251
- 5 U.S.C. § 706
- 59 Stat. 17
- 16 U.S.C. § 1531
- 33 U.S.C. § 701
Cited by
- Jo Anne Gourdeau v. City of Newton, Newton Police Department
- Randy Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Department
- Crowder v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
- Industrial Services Group, Inc. v. Dobson
- DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc. v. DC Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking
- State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Telecomm Consultants
- Albert Brown, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant v. Mississippi Department of Health, Defendant-Appellant Cross…
- Texas v. New Mexico