2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Updated CHOICE Act Proposes to Impose Heightened Pleading Requirement and Raise Burden of Proof for Plaintiffs in Section 36(b) Cases Against Mutual Fund Advisers

    Dechert LLPJames E.B. BobseineMay 2, 2017

    Sec. Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 624, 640 (E.D. Pa. 2001).7)Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984).8)Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 484 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).

  2. Public Trust Doctrine & Water Rights - The Walker Case: Does the Public Trust Doctrine Apply to Water Rights Established in Judicial Decrees?

    Best Best & Krieger LLPRoderick WalstonMarch 24, 2017

    Typically, disputes over water rights in interstate waters are resolved by the US Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, in which the Court applies its own common law doctrine of "equitable apportionment." Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 323-324 (1984); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 617 (1945). The Nevada district court in the Walker River case, however, acquired jurisdiction over water rights in both Nevada and California in the original Walker River litigation, and thus the court, in addressing Mineral County’s public trust claim, might face a choice of law issue that does not normally arise when the US Supreme Court resolves disputes concerning interstate waters under its original jurisdiction.