reserved rights doctrine (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

reserved rights doctrine in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2004 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Cappaert v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1976 · cited in 3 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1989–2004
2 sentences

1989The reserved rights doctrine only takes that amount of water “necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, no more.” [Cappaert,] 426 U.S. at 141 , 96 S.Ct. at 2070 .

1989The reserved rights doctrine only takes that amount of water “necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, no more.” [Cappaert,] 426 U.S. at 141 , 96 S.Ct. at 2070 .

23
Federal Power Commission v. Oregongreen
scotus · 1955 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. New Mexico green
scotus · 1978
2 sentences

1987New Mexico, 438 U.S. at 701-703 , 98 S.Ct. at 3015 . 11 Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted upon a clear showing that there is no genuine fesue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

1987New Mexico, 438 U.S. at 701-703 , 98 S.Ct. at 3015 . 11 Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted upon a clear showing that there is no genuine fesue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

11987–1987
United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. green
scotus · 1899
2 sentences

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

11982–1982
Winters v. United States green
scotus · 1908
2 sentences

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

11982–1982
Arizona v. California green
scotus · 1963
2 sentences

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

1982The existence of the reserved rights doctrine is now well recognized, and the United States Supreme Court has confirmed its existence as a matter of federal law in several cases throughout the past one hundred years. 28 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, supra; Cappaert v. United States, supra; Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 , 83 S.Ct. 1468 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963); Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 , 75 S.Ct. 832 , 99 L.Ed. 1215 (1955); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 , 28 S.Ct. 207 , 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908); United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S

11982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 43u.s.c.666 (5) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-101 (3) USC § 16u.s.c.1 (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

CO 5 (1982–2004) AZ 3 (1999–2018) WY 3 (1988–1992) MT 2 (1985–1986) CA 2 (1988–1988)

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