How cited: CF&I Steel Corp. v. Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District · Go Syfert

CF&I Steel Corp. v. Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District (1973)

green · 48 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 9 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198020032026
green McKenna v. Witte (2015)
Quote Authority · Colo. · signal: cf. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cf. CF & I Steel Corp. v. Purgatoire River Water Conservancy Dist., 183 Colo. 135 , 515 P.2d 456 , 458 (1973) ("[A] gleam-in-the-eye philosophy is not consistent with the protection and preservation of existing water rights.").
"[A] gleam-in-the-eye philosophy is not consistent with the protection and preservation of existing water rights."
Rule Authority · Colo. · 2 citations in this opinion
C F & I Steel, 183 Colo. at 140, 515 P.2d at 458.
Rule Authority · Mont. · 2 citations in this opinion
This gleam-in-the-eye philosophy is not consistent with the protection and preservation of existing water rights." [Citations omitted] CF & I Steel Corporation, 515 P.2d at 458. 79 Ranch's predecessor in interest, Ralph Schaff, stated that he was a dry land farmer and didn't know how to irrigate.
Rule Authority · Mont. · 2 citations in this opinion
This gleam-in-the-eye philosophy is not consistent with the protection and preservation of existing water rights." CF & I Steel, 515 P.2d at 458.
Rule Authority · N.M. Ct. App.
In CF & I Steel Corp., the user shut down a well in 1918, and by the time of trial had done nothing to maintain the well or make arrangements for alternate uses for the water for fifty-four years. 515 P.2d at 458.
Rule Authority · Mont.
This gleam-in-the-eye philosophy is not consistent with the protection and preservation of existing water rights.” CF & I Steel Corporation, 515 P.2d at 458.
Rule Authority · Mont.
This gleam-in-the-eye philosophy is not consistent with the protection and preservation of existing water rights.” 79 Ranch, 204 Mont. at 433-34 ; citing CF & I, 515 P.2d at 458.
Rule Authority · Colo.
In CF & I Steel there was no evidence of any efforts to lease, sell, or otherwise use the water rights during this long period of nonuse, and CF & I had dismantled its diversion and transportation works, making it impossible to divert water ,at its decreed points. 183 Colo, at 137, 140-41, 515 P.2d at 457, 459.
green Gardner v. State (1980)
Cited · Colo. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See CF&I Steel Corporation v. Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District, 183 Colo. 135 , 515 P.2d 456 (1973).