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.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fort Vannoy Irrigation District v. Water Resources Commissiongreen2 sentences2025Comm’n, 345 Or 56, 64-66 , 188 P3d 277 (2008) (discussing history of the appropriation doctrine and the Water Rights Act). 2025Comm’n, 345 Or 56, 64-66 , 188 P3d 277 (2008) (discussing history of the appropriation doctrine and the Water Rights Act). | 3 | 5 |
McCall v. Portergreen2 sentences2025ORS 537.120 (providing that “all waters of the state” may be appropriated for beneficial use “[s]ubject to existing rights,” and nothing in the act may be construed to “take away or impair the vested right of any person to any water or to the use of any water”); ORS 537.153(2) (in reviewing an application for a water right, the department must consider, among other things, whether the proposed use will injure other water rights); Fort Vannoy Irrigation, 345 Or at 64-65 (explaining that, as early as the 1840s to 1850s, when questions arose concerning the right to use streams, Oregonians applied 2025ORS 537.120 (providing that “all waters of the state” may be appropriated for beneficial use “[s]ubject to existing rights,” and nothing in the act may be construed to “take away or impair the vested right of any person to any water or to the use of any water”); ORS 537.153(2) (in reviewing an application for a water right, the department must consider, among other things, whether the proposed use will injure other water rights); Fort Vannoy Irrigation, 345 Or at 64-65 (explaining that, as early as the 1840s to 1850s, when questions arose concerning the right to use streams, Oregonians applied | 2 | 2 |
Teel Irrigation District v. Water Resources Departmentgreen2 sentences2025Dept., 323 Or 663, 666-67 , 919 P2d 1172 (1996); see also Fort Vannoy Irrigation v. Water Res. 2025Dept., 323 Or 663, 666-67 , 919 P2d 1172 (1996); see also Fort Vannoy Irrigation v. Water Res. | 1 | 3 |
Low v. Rizorgreen2 sentences2010Before the Oregon legislature codified the doctrine of prior appropriation in 1909, this court had held that a person seeking to establish his or her right to use water had to prove three elements: “First, an intent to apply it to some beneficial use, existing at the time or contemplated in the future; second, a diversion from the natural channel by means of a ditch, canal, or other structure; and third, an application of it, within a reasonable time, to some useful industry.” Low v. Rizor, 25 Or 551, 557, 37 P 82 (1894). 2010Before the Oregon legislature codified the doctrine of prior appropriation in 1909, this court had held that a person seeking to establish his or her right to use water had to prove three elements: “First, an intent to apply it to some beneficial use, existing at the time or contemplated in the future; second, a diversion from the natural channel by means of a ditch, canal, or other structure; and third, an application of it, within a reasonable time, to some useful industry.” Low v. Rizor, 25 Or 551, 557, 37 P 82 (1894). | 1 | 1 |
California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.green1 sentence2008See, e.g., Power Co., 295 US at 154 (stating that rule generally recognized throughout western states and territories was that acquisition of water by prior appropriation for beneficial use was entitled to protection, and that rule applied whether water was diverted for manufacturing, irrigation, or mining purposes); Parkersville District v. Wattier, 48 Or 332, 340 , 86 P 775 (1906) (explaining that discovery of gold in California gave rise to custom, established by miners, of using water of streams flowing through public lands to separate precious metal from baser material, and that use of wa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hough v. Porter
green
2 sentences1924A mere squatter upon public lands may acquire such an interest in the right of the possession thereof that he may even by parol transfer his rights therein to another, in which event the rights of the purchaser thereof, claiming under the doctrine of prior appropriation, relate back to the time of the original diversion: Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318 ( 95 Pac. 732 , 98 Pac. 1083 , 102 Pac. 728 ). 1924A mere squatter upon public lands may acquire such an interest in the right of the possession thereof that he may even by parol transfer his rights therein to another, in which event the rights of the purchaser thereof, claiming under the doctrine of prior appropriation, relate back to the time of the original diversion: Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318 ( 95 Pac. 732 , 98 Pac. 1083 , 102 Pac. 728 ). | 2 | 1924–1931 |
Parkersville Drainage District v. Wattier
neutral
2 sentences2008See, e.g., Power Co., 295 US at 154 (stating that rule generally recognized throughout western states and territories was that acquisition of water by prior appropriation for beneficial use was entitled to protection, and that rule applied whether water was diverted for manufacturing, irrigation, or mining purposes); Parkersville District v. Wattier, 48 Or 332, 340 , 86 P 775 (1906) (explaining that discovery of gold in California gave rise to custom, established by miners, of using water of streams flowing through public lands to separate precious metal from baser material, and that use of wa 2008See, e.g., Power Co., 295 US at 154 (stating that rule generally recognized throughout western states and territories was that acquisition of water by prior appropriation for beneficial use was entitled to protection, and that rule applied whether water was diverted for manufacturing, irrigation, or mining purposes); Parkersville District v. Wattier, 48 Or 332, 340 , 86 P 775 (1906) (explaining that discovery of gold in California gave rise to custom, established by miners, of using water of streams flowing through public lands to separate precious metal from baser material, and that use of wa | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co.
green
1 sentence1959And again at page 445: “My argument is that whatever its origin, the appropriation doctrine has been superimposed upon an underlying riparian doctrine and that the basic riparian doctrine has been modified to the extent and only to the extent which is necessary to give full force, application and effect to this superimposed appropriation doctrine.” State v. Red River Valley Co., 51 N M 207, 182 P2d 421 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co.
green
1 sentence1959In Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484 , 101P 1059 (1909) at page 1061, 1062 and 1063, the court, referring to an earlier Idaho case, said: “* * * that case seems to have been very careful not to hold that a riparian proprietor had no rights, as such, at all, but rather that his rights as a riparian proprietor, whatever they might be, were inferior to the rights of an appropriator of the waters. * * * “A riparian proprietor in the state of Idaho has no right in or claim to the waters of a stream flowing by or through his lands that he can successfully assert as being prior or s | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Seaweard v. Pacific Livestock Co.
green
2 sentences1931This rule they applied to appellants as well as to respondents: Seaweard v. Pacific Livestock Co., 49 Or. 157 ( 88 P. 963 ). *383 “But a squatter upon public lands may, even by parol, transfer his claim and interest, whatever it may be in this respect, to another, and the rights of the subsequent purchaser and of his successors in interest, if asserted under the doctrine of prior appropriation, relate back to the date of the first appropriation by the person with whom there may be a privity of estate. 1931This rule they applied to appellants as well as to respondents: Seaweard v. Pacific Livestock Co., 49 Or. 157 ( 88 P. 963 ). *383 “But a squatter upon public lands may, even by parol, transfer his claim and interest, whatever it may be in this respect, to another, and the rights of the subsequent purchaser and of his successors in interest, if asserted under the doctrine of prior appropriation, relate back to the date of the first appropriation by the person with whom there may be a privity of estate. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Reno Smelting, Milling & Reduction Works v. Stevenson
green
2 sentences1923It was stated by the Supreme Court of Utah in Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah, 215 ( 26 Pac. 290 ), thus: “At common law the,riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water flowing, in quantity and quality, past his land as it was wont to do when he acquired title thereto, and this right is utterly irreconcilable with the use of water for irrigation.” In the celebrated case of Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 ( 10 Pac. 675 ), the Court said: “The doctrine of appropriation, so called, is not the doctrine of the common law.” The statutes of Nevada adopted the common law of England in the following words: 1923It was stated by the Supreme Court of Utah in Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah, 215 ( 26 Pac. 290 ), thus: “At common law the,riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water flowing, in quantity and quality, past his land as it was wont to do when he acquired title thereto, and this right is utterly irreconcilable with the use of water for irrigation.” In the celebrated case of Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 ( 10 Pac. 675 ), the Court said: “The doctrine of appropriation, so called, is not the doctrine of the common law.” The statutes of Nevada adopted the common law of England in the following words: | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co. v. New York Mining Co.
green
1 sentence1923Co., 8 Cal. 327 ( 68 Am. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Lux v. Haggin
green
1 sentence1923It was stated by the Supreme Court of Utah in Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah, 215 ( 26 Pac. 290 ), thus: “At common law the,riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water flowing, in quantity and quality, past his land as it was wont to do when he acquired title thereto, and this right is utterly irreconcilable with the use of water for irrigation.” In the celebrated case of Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 ( 10 Pac. 675 ), the Court said: “The doctrine of appropriation, so called, is not the doctrine of the common law.” The statutes of Nevada adopted the common law of England in the following words: | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Stowell v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1923It was stated by the Supreme Court of Utah in Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah, 215 ( 26 Pac. 290 ), thus: “At common law the,riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water flowing, in quantity and quality, past his land as it was wont to do when he acquired title thereto, and this right is utterly irreconcilable with the use of water for irrigation.” In the celebrated case of Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 ( 10 Pac. 675 ), the Court said: “The doctrine of appropriation, so called, is not the doctrine of the common law.” The statutes of Nevada adopted the common law of England in the following words: | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Morgan v. Shaw
green
1 sentence1907It was incumbent upon plaintiffs, in order to avail themselves of this right, to clearly prove all the elements essential to a right under the doctrine of prior appropriation, and the evidence disclosed is insufficient to establish their diversion and appropria tion for that purpose earlier than 1884 (Morgan v. Shaw, 47 Or. 333 : 83 Pae. 534), unless the deed referred to is sufficient. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.