Arizona v. California
383 U.S. 268 · Decided February 28, 1966 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Arizona v. California was decided on February 28, 1966 unanimously (7–0). SCDB classifies its main issue as “Non-real property dispute between states” in the Interstate Relations area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 383 U.S. 268 · 86 S. Ct. 924 · 15 L. Ed. 2d 743 · 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2995
- Docket number
- 8 ORIG
- Decided
- February 28, 1966
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Decree
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–0 (unanimous)
- Opinion assigned by
- Hugo L. Black
- How the case arrived
- Original jurisdiction
- Issue (SCDB)
- Non-real property dispute between states
- Issue area
- Interstate Relations
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Unspecifiable what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Majority | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority |
Did not participate: Earl Warren, Abe Fortas.
Full case caption
Arizona v. California et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1965-062, docket 1965-062-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Non-real property dispute between states”
- Texas v. New Jersey
- Texas v. New Jersey
- Arizona v. California
- Pennsylvania v. New York
- Pennsylvania v. New York
- Illinois v. Michigan
Same Term, same area (Interstate Relations)
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error