to a jury trial. At one level, this is a dispute between Nebraska, on the one hand, and Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, represented by the Commission, on the other. The Constitution established two methods for resolving these types of disputes. Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U.S. 275, 279 n. 5, 79 S.Ct. 785, 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959). The first method is the original jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution. Id. (citing U.S. Const, art. III., § 2). “The other is the compact....” Id. (citation omitted). As for the first method, we know that when the Supreme Court exercises its original jurisdiction there is no jury trial even if money is awarded against a state. Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124, 130, 107 S.Ct. 2279, 96 L.Ed.2d 105 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The second method of resolving disputes
holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims holding that if the town acted in bad faith in negotiations and litigation which prevented construction then the plaintiffs on remand cannot be deemed to have lost any rights to vest that they would have been able to exercise in the absence of bad faith holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that an insurer acted in bad faith by failing to keep the insured informed of settlement negotiations holding that monetary relief could be awarded against new mexico because it acted in bad faith by failing to deliver water called for by a compact