federal reserved water rights doctrine in Idaho

10 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Stategreen idaho · 1998 · cited in 3 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–2000 2 sentences 2000In United States v. State of Idaho, 131 Idaho 468 , 959 P.2d 449 (1998), we noted that the federal reserved water rights doctrine arises from the United States Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). 2000In United States v. State of Idaho, 131 Idaho 468 , 959 P.2d 449 (1998), we noted that the federal reserved water rights doctrine arises from the United States Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908).	1	3
Cappaert v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Cappaert, 426 U.S. at 138 (the government “reserves appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.” (italics added)).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Winters v. United States green scotus · 1908 2 sentences 2000In United States v. State of Idaho, 131 Idaho 468 , 959 P.2d 449 (1998), we noted that the federal reserved water rights doctrine arises from the United States Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). 2000In United States v. State of Idaho, 131 Idaho 468 , 959 P.2d 449 (1998), we noted that the federal reserved water rights doctrine arises from the United States Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908).	6	1978–2000
State v. United States neutral idaho · 2000 2 sentences 2001THE LAW REGARDING FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS This court has recently ruled on several cases regarding the doctrine of federal reserved water rights, including: State v. United States, 134 Idaho 940 , 12 P.3d 1284 (2000)(regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area claims); Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 916 , 12 P.3d 1260 (2000) (regarding the Wilderness Act and Hells Canyon Recreation Act claims); and Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 912 , 12 P.3d 1256 (2000) (regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims). 2001THE LAW REGARDING FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS This court has recently ruled on several cases regarding the doctrine of federal reserved water rights, including: State v. United States, 134 Idaho 940 , 12 P.3d 1284 (2000)(regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area claims); Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 916 , 12 P.3d 1260 (2000) (regarding the Wilderness Act and Hells Canyon Recreation Act claims); and Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 912 , 12 P.3d 1256 (2000) (regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims).	2	2001–2001
Potlatch Corp. v. United States green idaho · 2000 2 sentences 2001THE LAW REGARDING FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS This court has recently ruled on several cases regarding the doctrine of federal reserved water rights, including: State v. United States, 134 Idaho 940 , 12 P.3d 1284 (2000)(regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area claims); Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 916 , 12 P.3d 1260 (2000) (regarding the Wilderness Act and Hells Canyon Recreation Act claims); and Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 912 , 12 P.3d 1256 (2000) (regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims). 2001THE LAW REGARDING FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS This court has recently ruled on several cases regarding the doctrine of federal reserved water rights, including: State v. United States, 134 Idaho 940 , 12 P.3d 1284 (2000)(regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area claims); Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 916 , 12 P.3d 1260 (2000) (regarding the Wilderness Act and Hells Canyon Recreation Act claims); and Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 912 , 12 P.3d 1256 (2000) (regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims).	2	2001–2001
Potlatch Corp. v. United States green idaho · 2000 2 sentences 2001THE LAW REGARDING FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS This court has recently ruled on several cases regarding the doctrine of federal reserved water rights, including: State v. United States, 134 Idaho 940 , 12 P.3d 1284 (2000)(regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area claims); Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 916 , 12 P.3d 1260 (2000) (regarding the Wilderness Act and Hells Canyon Recreation Act claims); and Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 912 , 12 P.3d 1256 (2000) (regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims). 2001THE LAW REGARDING FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS This court has recently ruled on several cases regarding the doctrine of federal reserved water rights, including: State v. United States, 134 Idaho 940 , 12 P.3d 1284 (2000)(regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation Area claims); Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 916 , 12 P.3d 1260 (2000) (regarding the Wilderness Act and Hells Canyon Recreation Act claims); and Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 134 Idaho 912 , 12 P.3d 1256 (2000) (regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims).	2	2001–2001
Arizona v. California green scotus · 1963 2 sentences 2000Given the fact that the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed almost 60 years after the Winters case, and a year after Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), which expressly expanded the doctrine to federal reservations other than Indian reservations, it must be assumed that Congress was aware of the federal reserved water rights doctrine at the time the Act was passed. 2000Given the fact that the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed almost 60 years after the Winters case, and a year after Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), which expressly expanded the doctrine to federal reservations other than Indian reservations, it must be assumed that Congress was aware of the federal reserved water rights doctrine at the time the Act was passed.	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 16u.s.c.460aa-8 (3) USC § 43u.s.c.666 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

ID 10 (1978–2019) AZ 4 (2000–2018) NM 2 (2008–2008) CO 2 (1989–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check