Henzel Props., Ltd. v. Roger Patterson, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Henzel Props., Ltd. v. Roger Patterson, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …parties that benefit from a government contract are generally assumed to be incidental beneficiaries, and may not enforce the contract absent a clear intent to the contrary. ⚠ not in text
42 citation events (41 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Borenstein v. The Animal Foundation (nvd, 2025-05-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Borenstein v. The Animal Foundation
D. Nev. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
parties that benefit from a government contract are generally assumed to be incidental 13 beneficiaries, and may not enforce the contract absent a clear intent to the contrary.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Hunnicutt, Sr. v. Peters
D.N.M. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
parties that benefit from a government contract are generally assumed to be incidental beneficiaries, and may not enforce the contract absent a clear intent to the contrary.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Hunnicutt, Sr. v. Peters
D.N.M. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
parties that benefit from a government contract are generally assumed to be incidental beneficiaries, and may not enforce the contract absent a clear intent to the contrary.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chen v. BMW of North America, LLC
N.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
In order to compel arbitration as an intended third-party 26 beneficiary, the nonsignatory must show that “the contract reflects the express or implied intention 27 of the parties to the contract to benefit the third party.” Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. 1 Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 1175 2 (9th Cir. 2000).
discussed Cited "see" Suzie's Brewery Company v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC
D. Or. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 1175 , 1210 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the parties dispute a contract’s meaning does not establish that the contract is ambiguous; it is only ambiguous if reasonable people could find its terms susceptible to more than one interpretation.” (emphasis added)). main purposes of that National Organic Program was to create a national, unified standard for organic labelling, designation, and advertising.
discussed Cited "see" Globe Imports Limited, Inc. v. Nationwide Insurance
9th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . 2 used for a dance-floor-related purpose – a martial arts studio – while the rest of the dance floor was covered in plywood.2 We review the district court’s interpretation of the parties’ contract de novo, Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000), and affirm.
discussed Cited "see" Board of Commissioners v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. La. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. .
discussed Cited "see" Meritage Homes of Nevada, Inc. v. FNBN-Rescon I, LLC
D. Nev. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
Under federal common law, “only a party to a contract or an intended third-party beneficiary may sue to enforce the terms of a contract or obtain an appropriate remedy for breach.” GECCMC, 671 F.3d at 1033 ; accord Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed Cited "see" Klamath Irrigation District v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that the ESA was enacted to "halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. ") (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted), amended by 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.2000). *509 Pursuant to the ESA, the Bureau has an obligation not to engage in any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such a species.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." MicroDental Laboratories, Inc. v. Hoofard
D. Or. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A written contract must be read as a whole and every part interpreted with reference to the whole, with preference given to reasonable interpretations. . . .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Fresno v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cir. 2003)); see also Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 313 (Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Klamath Water Users Protective Association Klamath Drainage District Sam Henzel Henzel Properties, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants
v.
Roger Patterson, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Karl E. Wirkus, Area Manager, Klamath Irrigation Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Eluid Martinez, Commissioner of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior Patricia Beneke, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior the United States Bureau of Reclamation United States of America, and Pacificorp, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, and Northcoast Environmental Center Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Association Institute for Fisheries Resources Klamath Forest Alliance Mazamas Oregon Natural Resources Center the Wilderness Society Waterwatch of Oregon Yurok Tribe, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees
98-35708.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 28, 2000.
203 F.3d 1175
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #29,278 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. New Mexico (2) · D. Nevada (1)

203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000)

KLAMATH WATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION; KLAMATH DRAINAGE DISTRICT; SAM HENZEL; HENZEL PROPERTIES, LTD., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants,
v.
ROGER PATTERSON, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; KARL E. WIRKUS, Area Manager, Klamath Irrigation Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; ELUID MARTINEZ, Commissioner of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; PATRICIA BENEKE, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior; BRUCE BABBITT,
Secretary of the Interior; THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees,
and
PACIFICORP, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee,
and
NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER; PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION; INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES; KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE; MAZAMAS; OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER; THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; WATERWATCH OF OREGON; YUROK TRIBE, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 98-35708

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

January 28, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-3033 MRH.

Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Warren J. Ferguson, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The opinion filed September 9, 1999, is amending by adding a new footnote 3 at the end of Part II.B.3, slip op. at 11169, 191 F.3d at 1123, as follows:

2

3. An adjudication of all of the rights to the use of the surface waters of the Klamath River Basin ("Basin"), within the State of Oregon, is now pending in state court. See United States v. Oregon, 44 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 1994). That is a comprehensive water rights adjudication contemplated by the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. S 666, and questions of relative amounts and priorities, at least within the State of Oregon, will be decided there. Our decision in this case and that of that district court relate only to questions involving the Bureau's operation and management of the Project, and not to the relative rights of others not before the court to the use of the waters of the Basin.

3

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellants' petition for panel rehearing. Judge Tashima votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges B. Fletcher and Ferguson so recommend.

4

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on en banc rehearing. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).

5

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.