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.
6 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Sterling Irrigation District v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2019See N. Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Simpson, 202 P.3d 1207 (Colo. 2009) (declaratory judgment action against state engineer regarding administration of “the one fill rule”); Archuleta v. Gomez, 200 P.3d 333 (Colo. 2009) (injunctive relief involving ownership of existing water right through adverse possession); City of Golden v. Simpson, 83 P.3d 87 (Colo. 2004) (motion to temporarily restrain state engineer from barring further diversions in breach of agreement among water rights holders); Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980) (proceeding to determine whether adjudicated water right shoul 2016Accordingly, “the state engineer and division engineers are bound by their statutory mandate to account for, and if necessary, curtail diversions that violate the one-fill rule.” Id. | 2 | 5 |
Orchard City Irrigation District v. Whittengreen2 sentences2011Whitten, 146 Colo. at 142 , 861 P.2d at 137. 2010See Orchard City Irrigation Dist. v. Whitten, 146 Colo. 127, 141 , 361 P.2d 130, 137 (1961) (holding that a storage right may only fill onee per year). | 1 | 2 |
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Fort Lyon Canal Co.green1 sentence2011In Southeastern Colorado Water Conservaney District v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 720 P.2d 133, 146-47 (Colo.1986), we clarified our holding in Westminster, explaining that "diminished return flows, whether due to change in direct-flow or storage rights, must be considered when calculating the amount of injury to other appropriators." In North Sterling Irrigation District v. Simpson, 202 P.3d 1207 (Colo.2009), we once again addressed application of the one-fill rule, this time in reference to an irrigation district's challenge to the imposition of a fixed water year measuring annual diversions into | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Archuleta v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2019See N. Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Simpson, 202 P.3d 1207 (Colo. 2009) (declaratory judgment action against state engineer regarding administration of “the one fill rule”); Archuleta v. Gomez, 200 P.3d 333 (Colo. 2009) (injunctive relief involving ownership of existing water right through adverse possession); City of Golden v. Simpson, 83 P.3d 87 (Colo. 2004) (motion to temporarily restrain state engineer from barring further diversions in breach of agreement among water rights holders); Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980) (proceeding to determine whether adjudicated water right shoul 2011Examples include City of Golden v. Simpson, 88 P.8d 87 (Colo.2004), an injunetion action by an individual water user against the state engineer, Archuleta v. Go-mes, 200 P.3d 333 , (Colo.2009), an injunction action involving a claim for adverse possession of a water right pitting individuals within a ditch system against each other, and N. Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Simpson, 202 P.3d 1207 (Colo.2009), a declaratory judgment action between a water district and the state engineer regarding administration of "the one fill rule" for a particular reservoir. | 2 | 2011–2019 |
Gardner v. State
green
1 sentence2019See N. Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Simpson, 202 P.3d 1207 (Colo. 2009) (declaratory judgment action against state engineer regarding administration of “the one fill rule”); Archuleta v. Gomez, 200 P.3d 333 (Colo. 2009) (injunctive relief involving ownership of existing water right through adverse possession); City of Golden v. Simpson, 83 P.3d 87 (Colo. 2004) (motion to temporarily restrain state engineer from barring further diversions in breach of agreement among water rights holders); Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980) (proceeding to determine whether adjudicated water right shoul | 1 | 2019–2019 |
City of Golden v. Simpson
green
1 sentence2019See N. Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Simpson, 202 P.3d 1207 (Colo. 2009) (declaratory judgment action against state engineer regarding administration of “the one fill rule”); Archuleta v. Gomez, 200 P.3d 333 (Colo. 2009) (injunctive relief involving ownership of existing water right through adverse possession); City of Golden v. Simpson, 83 P.3d 87 (Colo. 2004) (motion to temporarily restrain state engineer from barring further diversions in breach of agreement among water rights holders); Gardner v. State, 614 P.2d 357 (Colo. 1980) (proceeding to determine whether adjudicated water right shoul | 1 | 2019–2019 |
City of Westminster v. Church
green
2 sentences2011In Westminster, we held that "[a] reservoir right permits one filling of the reservoir per year." 167 Colo. at 14 , 445 P.2d at 58 . 2011In Westminster, we held that "[a] reservoir right permits one filling of the reservoir per year." 167 Colo. at 14 , 445 P.2d at 58 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.