Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Florida Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

• 1930 • 282 U.S. 194 • Hughes Court
In the case of Florida et al. v. United States et al., 1930, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between states over apportionment of water from a river that flowed through their territories. The State of Florida and Alabama sued Georgia for equitable apportionment of waters from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin). They claimed that Georgia's consumption significantly reduced downstream flows causing harm to oyster fisheries in Apalachicola Bay and also...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1930
Docket: 16
282 U.S. 194
51 S. Ct. 119
75 L. Ed. 291
1931 U.S. LEXIS 839
Argued: Oct 30, 1930

Florida Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Florida et al. v. United States et al., 1930, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between states over apportionment of water from a river that flowed through their territories. The State of Florida and Alabama sued Georgia for equitable apportionment of waters from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin). They claimed that Georgia's consumption significantly reduced downstream flows causing harm to oyster fisheries in Apalachicola Bay and also impacting power generation capabilities at Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama. The court ruled against Florida stating it failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a cap on Georgia’s water use would provide an effective remedy for its alleged harms without harming other stakeholders like Atlanta city residents or farmers who rely on this basin for drinking water supply and irrigation respectively. This decision underscored how interstate disputes over shared natural resources can be complex, requiring careful balancing of interests among multiple parties.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Florida et al. v. United States et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting shipment of filled milk (milk mixed with non-milk fats) was an overreach of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. He contended that while it is within Congress' purview to regulate interstate commerce, this should not extend to regulating what products can be sold simply because they might cross state lines in trade. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that filled milk was inherently harmful and deceptive; rather, he believed such determinations should be left up to individual states or consumers themselves based on their own judgment and preferences. In his view, if every product deemed by some as unhealthy or undesirable were banned from interstate commerce, it would lead to an untenable expansion of federal regulatory power at the expense of state sovereignty and individual freedom.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(2)
Decided: Jan 05, 1931
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms