Special Master

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to define MoneyGram’s Official Checks (“Official Checks”) to determine which states have jurisdiction over funds from unclaimed Official Checks, and then to clarify which abandoned financial instruments are subject to the Federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (“FDA”). The FDA sets the standards for the remittance of funds payable on unclaimed financial instruments. Petitioner Delaware argues that Official Checks are “third party bank checks,” not “money orders,” “traveler’s checks,” or “other similar written instruments” and are therefore not subject to the FDA. Respondents Pennsylvania and Wisconsin counter that Official Checks are subject to the FDA as either “money orders” or “other similar written instruments.” The outcome of this case has implications for the state receipt of funds from unpaid financial instruments, the role of the Court in interpreting legislation, and the direction of future litigation regarding the recovery of funds.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Florida is entitled to an apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin against Georgia. Plaintiff Florida argues that Georgia’s use of the water is unreasonable because of mismanagement and waste and that Georgia’s use harms Florida’s oyster fisheries. Florida argues that it is entitled to relief because even an extra 1,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) of water will greatly benefit Florida, whereas the cost to Georgia is low and can be mitigated by water conservation methods. Defendant Georgia argues that Georgia’s use is reasonable because Florida’s models for consumption are incorrect and that the water is used for important purposes such as irrigation. Georgia also argues that a cap on its consumption would yield little benefit to Florida because of how the United States Army Corps of Engineers operates its dams and reservoirs and would be extremely costly for Georgia to implement. The outcome of this case will have implications for the sharing of water resources by neighboring states, state economies, and the environment. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Since 1902, Kansas and Colorado have been disputing the proper use of the Arkansas River. Each time a new issue arises, the Supreme Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over this type of case, has called upon a Special Master to hear the arguments and make a determination. In the most recent case, Kansas claimed that Colorado violated the Arkansas River Compact by depleting the river of water that the Compact reserves for Kansas. Extensive expert witness testimony was required in the case, and ultimately the Special Master ruled in favor of Kansas. The Special Master also decided that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b), expert witness fees would be limited to $40 per day. Kansas, having spent more than $9 million dollars on expert witnesses throughout the case, disagrees with this determination, arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) does not apply to cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will decide whether it is bound by 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b) when hearing a case under its original jurisdiction or whether, as argued by Kansas, the Court is free to make its own determination regarding fees. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources