Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Washington opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.green2 sentences2016Thus, it is subject to the basic principle of water rights acquired, by prior appropriation that the first in time is the first in right. 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 17 n.8 (“RCW 90.44.050 itself provides that a right acquired under the exemption is to be treated as all other rights, and thus is subject to the prior appropriation doctrine’s first in time first in right principle.”). 5 ¶12 The court reiterated this point in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology, 178 Wn.2d 571 , 311 P.3d 6 (2013), where it addre 2016Thus, it is subject to the basic principle of water rights acquired, by prior appropriation that the first in time is the first in right. 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 17 n.8 (“RCW 90.44.050 itself provides that a right acquired under the exemption is to be treated as all other rights, and thus is subject to the prior appropriation doctrine’s first in time first in right principle.”). 5 ¶12 The court reiterated this point in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology, 178 Wn.2d 571 , 311 P.3d 6 (2013), where it addre | 4 | 7 |
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Boardgreen2 sentences2015Postema, 142 Wn.2d at 90 . 2013This “paramount rule” of the doctrine means that “ ‘[t]he first appropriator is entitled to the quantity of water appropriated by him, to the exclusion of subsequent claimants’ ” Postema, 142 Wn.2d at 80, 79 (emphasis added) (quoting Longmire , 26 Wash, at 447). 9 The prior appropriation doctrine and the first in time first in right priority principle are founded on the idea that at some point the water in a stream or lake will be insufficient to satisfy all potential users, and that the rights of those who have already appropriated water to a beneficial use will be superior to any later appro | 1 | 5 |
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecologygreen2 sentences2016Thus, it is subject to the basic principle of water rights acquired, by prior appropriation that the first in time is the first in right. 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 17 n.8 (“RCW 90.44.050 itself provides that a right acquired under the exemption is to be treated as all other rights, and thus is subject to the prior appropriation doctrine’s first in time first in right principle.”). 5 ¶12 The court reiterated this point in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology, 178 Wn.2d 571 , 311 P.3d 6 (2013), where it addre 2016Thus, it is subject to the basic principle of water rights acquired, by prior appropriation that the first in time is the first in right. 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 17 n.8 (“RCW 90.44.050 itself provides that a right acquired under the exemption is to be treated as all other rights, and thus is subject to the prior appropriation doctrine’s first in time first in right principle.”). 5 ¶12 The court reiterated this point in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology, 178 Wn.2d 571 , 311 P.3d 6 (2013), where it addre | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pontengreen2 sentences2016See State v. Ponten, 77 Wn.2d 463 , 463 P.2d 150 (1969); Welch v. Dep’t of Ecology, No. 98-108, 2000 WL 871699 , 2000 WA ENV LEXIS 109 (Wash. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd. May 4, 2000). 2016See State v. Ponten, 77 Wn.2d 463 , 463 P.2d 150 (1969); Welch v. Dep’t of Ecology, No. 98-108, 2000 WL 871699 , 2000 WA ENV LEXIS 109 (Wash. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd. May 4, 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Ickesgreen1 sentence1991Fox v. Ickes, 137 F.2d 30, 33 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hallauer v. Spectrum Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019The prior appropriation doctrine “‘provides that a right to water can be established only by putting water to beneficial use and that the first such use in time is the first such use in right.’” Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 134 , 18 P.3d 540 (2001) (quoting Charles B. 2010Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 134 , 18 P.3d 540 (2001); In re Surface Waters of Deadman Creek Drainage Basin, 103 Wn.2d 686 , 694 P.2d 1071 (1985); 23 Timothy Butlek & Matthew King, Washington Practice: Environmental Law and Practice § 8.2, at 288-89 (2d ed. 2007). | 3 | 2010–2019 |
Hallauer v. Spectrum Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019The prior appropriation doctrine “‘provides that a right to water can be established only by putting water to beneficial use and that the first such use in time is the first such use in right.’” Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 134 , 18 P.3d 540 (2001) (quoting Charles B. 2010Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 134 , 18 P.3d 540 (2001); In re Surface Waters of Deadman Creek Drainage Basin, 103 Wn.2d 686 , 694 P.2d 1071 (1985); 23 Timothy Butlek & Matthew King, Washington Practice: Environmental Law and Practice § 8.2, at 288-89 (2d ed. 2007). | 3 | 2010–2019 |
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn
green
2 sentences2025Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002); see RCW 90.03.010. 2016Thus, it is subject to the basic principle of water rights acquired, by prior appropriation that the first in time is the first in right. 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 17 n.8 (“RCW 90.44.050 itself provides that a right acquired under the exemption is to be treated as all other rights, and thus is subject to the prior appropriation doctrine’s first in time first in right principle.”). 5 ¶12 The court reiterated this point in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology, 178 Wn.2d 571 , 311 P.3d 6 (2013), where it addre | 2 | 2016–2025 |
Richard A. Fox And Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit County, Res.
green
2 sentences2019Prior Appropriation Doctrine Washington follows the prior appropriation doctrine of water rights, summarized: “‘as between appropriations, the first in time shall be the first in right.’” Fox v. Skagit County, 193 Wn. 2019App. 254, 264 , 372 P.3d 784 (2016) (quoting RCW 90.03.010). | 2 | 2016–2019 |
Longmire v. Smith
green
2 sentences2013RCW 90.03.010; Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 9 ; Postema, 142 Wn.2d at 79 ; Longmire v. Smith, 26 Wash. 439, 447 , 67 P. 246 (1901). 2013RCW 90.03.010; Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 9 ; Postema, 142 Wn.2d at 79 ; Longmire v. Smith, 26 Wash. 439, 447 , 67 P. 246 (1901). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Department of Ecology v. Abbott
green
2 sentences2010Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 134 , 18 P.3d 540 (2001); In re Surface Waters of Deadman Creek Drainage Basin, 103 Wn.2d 686 , 694 P.2d 1071 (1985); 23 Timothy Butlek & Matthew King, Washington Practice: Environmental Law and Practice § 8.2, at 288-89 (2d ed. 2007). 2010Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 134 , 18 P.3d 540 (2001); In re Surface Waters of Deadman Creek Drainage Basin, 103 Wn.2d 686 , 694 P.2d 1071 (1985); 23 Timothy Butlek & Matthew King, Washington Practice: Environmental Law and Practice § 8.2, at 288-89 (2d ed. 2007). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Neubert v. Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District
green
2 sentences2002RCW 90.03.010; Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000); Neubert v. Yakima-Tieton Irrigation Dist., 117 Wn.2d 232, 240-41 , 814 P.2d 199 (1991). 2002RCW 90.03.010; Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000); Neubert v. Yakima-Tieton Irrigation Dist., 117 Wn.2d 232, 240-41 , 814 P.2d 199 (1991). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.
green
2 sentences2002RCW 90.03.010; Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000); Neubert v. Yakima-Tieton Irrigation Dist., 117 Wash.2d 232, 240-41 , 814 P.2d 199 (1991). 2002RCW 90.03.010; Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000); Neubert v. Yakima-Tieton Irrigation Dist., 117 Wn.2d 232, 240-41 , 814 P.2d 199 (1991). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Foster v. Department of Ecology
green
1 sentence2019The prior appropriation doctrine “does not permit any impairment, even a de minimis impairment, of a senior water right.” Foster, 184 Wn.2d at 471 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.