priority doctrine in California

2022The main purpose of the act was ‘to provide an orderly method for the appropriation of [unappropriated] waters.’ ” ( Shirokow, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 307–308, fns. omitted.) As the 1913 Act did not go into effect until December 1914, these rights are referred to as pre-1914 appropriative rights.

2002The miners adopted among themselves the priority rule of ‘first in time, first in right,’ and California courts looked to principles of equity and of real property law to adjudicate conflicting claims. [Citations.] Thus it was initially the law in this state that a person could appropriate water merely by diverting it and putting it to use.” ( Shirokow, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 307-308.) “The first appropriation statute was enacted in 1872 and provided for initiation of the appropriative right by the posting and recordation of notice. [Citation.] The nonstatutory method retained its vitality an

1954Co., 274 F. 836 .) “These equitable considerations sustain appellant’s position as to the priority of his claim against the trust fund. . . .

1954Co., 274 F. 836 .)" "These equitable considerations sustain appellant's position as to the priority of his claim against the trust fund. ...

2021(Cf. Cappaert v. United States (1976) 426 U.S. 128, 138 .) The priority pumping right among overliers is a correlative interest: it is shared along with all of the other overlying landowners above the aquifer.

2021(Cf. Cappaert v. United States (1976) 426 U.S. 128, 138 .) 18. which it is not legally entitled in a manner that is ‘“actual, open and notorious, hostile and adverse to the original owner, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of five years, and under claim of right.”’ (Ibid.)” (Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, at p. 1184 .) The priority rights held by overliers is a correlative interest: it is shared along with all of the other overlying landowners above the aquifer.

2021Under certain circumstances, an appropriator may gain ‘prescriptive rights’ by using groundwater to which it is not legally entitled in a manner that is ‘“actual, open and notorious, hostile and adverse to the original owner, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of five years, and under claim of right.”’ (Ibid.)” (Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, at p. 1184 .) While water rights in an underground basin are typically categorized as overlying, appropriative, or prescriptive, an additional priority claim to such water, known as federal reserved wate

2021(Cf. Cappaert v. United States (1976) 426 U.S. 128, 138 .) 18. which it is not legally entitled in a manner that is ‘“actual, open and notorious, hostile and adverse to the original owner, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of five years, and under claim of right.”’ (Ibid.)” (Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, at p. 1184 .) The priority rights held by overliers is a correlative interest: it is shared along with all of the other overlying landowners above the aquifer.

2021Section 1281.2, seventh paragraph, in contrast to section 1281.2, subdivision (c), authorizes the court to delay an order for arbitration, not to avoid conflicting rulings, but when determination of nonarbitrable claims pending between the parties to an arbitration agreement “may make the arbitration unnecessary.” (See Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 977 ; RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1521-1522 .) Resolution of the nonarbitrable PAGA claims asserted by Xulu, however, will still leave undetermined a number of

2021Section 1281.2, seventh paragraph, in contrast to section 1281.2, subdivision (c), authorizes the court to delay an order for arbitration, not to avoid conflicting rulings, but when determination of nonarbitrable claims pending between the parties to an arbitration agreement “may make the arbitration unnecessary.” (See Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 977 ; RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1521-1522 .) Resolution of the nonarbitrable PAGA claims asserted by Xulu, however, will still leave undetermined a number of

2008In Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, supra, 31 Cal.4th 728 , the Supreme Court considered whether findings in an underlying case, alone, can support a finding of no probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution action.

2000A true equitable apportionment would take into account many more factors.” (Ibid.) In a footnote accompanying this sentence, this court observed: “The principles by which *1246 the United States Supreme Court equitably apportions water among states are illustrated in Nebraska v. Wyoming (1945) 325 U.S. 589, 618 [ 89 L.Ed. 1815, 1831-1832 , 65 S.Ct. 1332 ].[ 12 ] After observing that apportionment between states whose laws base water rights on priority of appropriation should primarily accord with that principle, the court said: ‘But if an allocation between appropriation States is to be just a

1997(See also Sterling Boat Co. v. Arizona Marine, Inc. (1982) 134 Ariz. 55 [ 653 P.2d 703, 706 ].) In our view the language of GBS Meat Industry Pty.

1997(See also Sterling Boat Co. v. Arizona Marine, Inc. (1982) 134 Ariz. 55 [ 653 P.2d 703, 706 ].) In our view the language of GBS Meat Industry Pty.

1993In Texas Commerce Bank v. Garamendi, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th 460 , we held these instruments to be annuities and their holders to be entitled to class-5-priority status.

1980(See Address by Chief Justice Shaw, The Development of the Law of Waters in the West (1922) 189 Cal. 779 ; Hutchins, op. cit. supra, at pp. 41-49; 1 Rogers & Nichols, op. cit. supra, at pp. 254-256.) Thus it was initially the law in this state that a person could appropriate water merely by diverting it and putting it to use.

1980(See Address by Chief Justice Shaw, The Development of the Law of Waters in the West (1922) 189 Cal. 779 ; Hutchins, op. cit. supra, at pp. 41-49; 1 Rogers & Nichols, op. cit. supra, at pp. 254-256.) Thus it was initially the law in this state that a person could appropriate water merely by diverting it and putting it to use.

1975In deciding for the latter, the court statecf that under the priority rule, “certain of the later appropriations would be completely eliminated,” whereas the prescriptive solution would serve the public interest because “a pro tanto reduction of the amount of water devoted to each present use would normally be less disruptive than total elimination of some of the uses.” ( 33 Cal.2d at p. 933 .) The uses which would have been eliminated if the priority rule had been applied in Pasadena were only those uses which had commenced after the total amount being taken from the basin began to exceed the

1966Hathorne v. Morrow, 181 Ill. 314 [ 54 N.E. 839 ] as follows: “ ‘As between courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the tribunal first acquiring jurisdiction retains it, and is not to be interfered with by another co-ordinate court.

1940Quite to the contrary he “concedes the law to be well settled that an attaching creditor takes subject to the lien of a delivered but unrecorded deed of trust”; but, as pointed out by him, before a party claiming under an unrecorded mortgage or deed is entitled to the benefit of the priority doctrine it must appear that there *571 has been a valid delivery o£ the instrument prior to the attachment levy (Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547 [ 4 Pac. 473 , 8 Pac. 46 , 56 Am.

1940Quite to the contrary he “concedes the law to be well settled that an attaching creditor takes subject to the lien of a delivered but unrecorded deed of trust”; but, as pointed out by him, before a party claiming under an unrecorded mortgage or deed is entitled to the benefit of the priority doctrine it must appear that there *571 has been a valid delivery o£ the instrument prior to the attachment levy (Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547 [ 4 Pac. 473 , 8 Pac. 46 , 56 Am.