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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences1988To the contrary, however, the court in New Mexico expressly stated that Congress had contemplated " the United States would acquire [unreserved] water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator." ( 438 U.S. at p. 702 [ 57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058 ], italics added.) Indeed, as the United States points out, Congress has expressly authorized the Forest Service to expend such funds "as may be necessary for the investigation and establishment of water rights ... necessary or beneficial in connection with the administration and public use of the national forests." ( 16 U.S.C. § 526 , i 1988To the contrary, however, the court in New Mexico expressly stated that Congress had contemplated " the United States would acquire [unreserved] water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator." ( 438 U.S. at p. 702 [ 57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058 ], italics added.) Indeed, as the United States points out, Congress has expressly authorized the Forest Service to expend such funds "as may be necessary for the investigation and establishment of water rights ... necessary or beneficial in connection with the administration and public use of the national forests." ( 16 U.S.C. § 526 , i | 2 | 2 |
Oliver v. Robnettgreen2 sentences1931Even if the upper riparian owner is using all the water of the stream, still if the lower riparian owner is not then using any and has no desire to do so, such use by the upper riparian owner would not be adverse and, if continued for five years, would not gain him a prescriptive right.” So, also, in the case of Oliver v. Robnett, 190 Cal. 51, 55 [ 210 Pac. 408, 410 ], it is said: “Title by prescription is only gained to the extent to which the rights of the lower riparian owner are interfered with. . . . 1922In the absence of a showing that the upper owner is using the water under a claim of prescriptive right the lower owner has the right to presume *Page 129 that such owner is only taking that to which he is entitled as a riparian owner by virtue of his riparian right. ( Skelly v. Cowell, 37 Cal.App. 215 [ 173 P. 609 ]; Oliver v. Robnett, ante, p. 51 [ 210 P. 408 ].) Such use was not hostile unless there was an actual clash between the rights of the respective owners. | 1 | 2 |
Pabst v. Finmandgreen2 sentences1931In the case of Pabst v. Finmand, 190 Cal. 124, 130 [ 211 Pac. 11, 13 ], it is said with regard to adverse possession of water: “In the absence of a showing that the upper owner is using the water under a claim of prescriptive right, the lower owner has the right to presume that such owner is only taking that to which he is entitled as a riparian owner by virtue of his riparian right. . . . 1931In the case of Pabst v. Finmand, 190 Cal. 124, 130 [ 211 Pac. 11, 13 ], it is said with regard to adverse possession of water: “In the absence of a showing that the upper owner is using the water under a claim of prescriptive right, the lower owner has the right to presume that such owner is only taking that to which he is entitled as a riparian owner by virtue of his riparian right. . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Union of American Physicians & Dentists v. Kizer
green
2 sentences2022Physicians & Dentists v. Kizer (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 490, 498 ); (4) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1997, 2002, 2011, and 2014, stated insects are not covered under the Act; (5) the Legislature recently “again confirmed that insects cannot be listed,” as stated in a report by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water’s analysis of Senate Bill No. 49 during the 2017-2018 regular session; (6) the Department’s and the Department of Finance’s enrolled bill reports on Senate Bill 858, when section 45 was amended to include invertebrates in 1969, indicate the term invertebr 2022Physicians & Dentists v. Kizer (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 490, 498 ); (4) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1997, 2002, 2011, and 2014, stated insects are not covered under the Act; (5) the Legislature recently “again confirmed that insects cannot be listed,” as stated in a report by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water’s analysis of Senate Bill No. 49 during the 2017-2018 regular session; (6) the Department’s and the Department of Finance’s enrolled bill reports on Senate Bill 858, when section 45 was amended to include invertebrates in 1969, indicate the term invertebr | 2 | 2022–2022 |
California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.
green
2 sentences1988The California-Oregon Power court, supra, 295 U.S. 142 , in rejecting the view that a federal patent transferred riparian rights to the patentee and holding instead that Congress had "severed" the water from the land which it conveyed, did not state — or even suggest — that the United States had thereby "relinquished" all water rights in the land which it retained. 1988The California-Oregon Power court, supra, 295 U.S. 142, in rejecting the view that a federal patent transferred riparian rights to the patentee and holding instead that Congress had “severed” the water from the land which it conveyed, did not state—or even suggest—that the United States had thereby “relinquished” all water rights in the land which it retained. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2005(Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 ] (SCOPE).) The court observed the EIR failed to undertake an adequate analysis of the amount of water the State Water Project could actually deliver in wet, average and dry years. 2005(Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 ] (SCOPE).) The court observed the EIR failed to undertake an adequate analysis of the amount of water the State Water Project could actually deliver in wet, average and dry years. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
San Rafael Ranch Co. v. Ralph Rogers Co.
neutral
2 sentences1929(San Rafael Ranch Co. v. Ralph Rogers Co., 154 Cal. 76 [ 96 Pac. 1092 ]; Walker v. Lillingston, 137 Cal. 401 [ 70 Pac. 282 ]; Painter v. Pasadena L. & W. 1929(San Rafael Ranch Co. v. Ralph Rogers Co., 154 Cal. 76 [ 96 Pac. 1092 ]; Walker v. Lillingston, 137 Cal. 401 [ 70 Pac. 282 ]; Painter v. Pasadena L. & W. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Walker v. Lillingston
neutral
2 sentences1929(San Rafael Ranch Co. v. Ralph Rogers Co., 154 Cal. 76 [ 96 Pac. 1092 ]; Walker v. Lillingston, 137 Cal. 401 [ 70 Pac. 282 ]; Painter v. Pasadena L. & W. 1929(San Rafael Ranch Co. v. Ralph Rogers Co., 154 Cal. 76 [ 96 Pac. 1092 ]; Walker v. Lillingston, 137 Cal. 401 [ 70 Pac. 282 ]; Painter v. Pasadena L. & W. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Van Slyke v. Arrowhead Reservoir & Power Co.
green
2 sentences1929The reservation of the water was an exception rather than a reservation, and operated to withhold from the thing granted the right to the water so excepted and described. (9 Cal. Jur. 323; Van Slyke v. Arrowhead etc. Power Co., 155 Cal. 675 [ 102 Pac. 816 ].) It was a proper subject for reservation and exception from the grant. 1929The reservation of the water was an exception rather than a reservation, and operated to withhold from the thing granted the right to the water so excepted and described. (9 Cal. Jur. 323; Van Slyke v. Arrowhead etc. Power Co., 155 Cal. 675 [ 102 Pac. 816 ].) It was a proper subject for reservation and exception from the grant. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Skelly v. Cowell
green
2 sentences1922In the absence of a showing that the upper owner is using the water under a claim of prescriptive right the lower owner has the right to presume *Page 129 that such owner is only taking that to which he is entitled as a riparian owner by virtue of his riparian right. ( Skelly v. Cowell, 37 Cal.App. 215 [ 173 P. 609 ]; Oliver v. Robnett, ante, p. 51 [ 210 P. 408 ].) Such use was not hostile unless there was an actual clash between the rights of the respective owners. 1922In the absence of a showing that the upper owner is using the water under a claim of prescriptive right the lower owner has the right to presume *Page 129 that such owner is only taking that to which he is entitled as a riparian owner by virtue of his riparian right. ( Skelly v. Cowell, 37 Cal.App. 215 [ 173 P. 609 ]; Oliver v. Robnett, ante, p. 51 [ 210 P. 408 ].) Such use was not hostile unless there was an actual clash between the rights of the respective owners. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.