Connection lost
Server error
New Jersey v. New York Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: New York sought to divert Delaware River water for its public supply. New Jersey sued to stop it, claiming riparian rights. The Supreme Court rejected strict riparianism, instead applying equitable apportionment to permit a limited, conditional diversion that balanced the states’ competing interests.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established equitable apportionment as the governing federal common law doctrine for resolving disputes over interstate streams, supplanting the rigid common law of riparian rights and creating a flexible framework for balancing the sovereign interests of states.
New Jersey v. New York Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The State and City of New York planned to divert up to 600 million gallons of water per day from tributaries of the Delaware River to augment New York City’s public water supply. This diversion would transfer water from the Delaware River watershed to the Hudson River watershed. The State of New Jersey, a downstream riparian state, filed a bill in equity to enjoin any diversion, asserting its common law right to the river’s natural, undiminished flow. New Jersey alleged numerous injuries, including harm to navigation, municipal water supplies, industrial use, sanitary conditions, and valuable oyster and shad fisheries due to increased salinity and reduced flow. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania intervened to protect its own interests in the river. New Jersey argued for a strict application of common law riparian rights, which would prohibit any diversion. New York contended that as a sovereign, it had the right to divert water within its borders for the health and welfare of its citizens. The case was referred to a Special Master, who took extensive evidence on the potential impacts of the proposed diversion.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a dispute between sovereign states over an interstate river, is the allocation of water governed by the common law doctrine of riparian rights, or by a principle of equitable apportionment that balances the states’ competing interests?
The Court denied New Jersey’s request for a complete injunction but granted Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offic
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In a dispute between sovereign states over an interstate river, is the allocation of water governed by the common law doctrine of riparian rights, or by a principle of equitable apportionment that balances the states’ competing interests?
Conclusion
This case cemented equitable apportionment as the foundational doctrine of federal common Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad min
Legal Rule
Disputes between states over the waters of an interstate stream are not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fug
Legal Analysis
Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes explicitly rejected New Jersey's reliance on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In disputes between states over an interstate river, the governing doctrine