Beneficial Use Of Water

47 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• W. S. Ranch Co. v. Kaiser Steel Corp.
  388 F.2d 257· 10th Cir.· 1967-10-12 ·cited 38×
  The court should have abstained pending a determination by the New Mexico state courts on the issue of whether private condemnation is permissible for the transportation of water for mining purposes. The federal court's decision on this matter of fundamental state public policy,
• Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist.
  626 F.2d 95· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that dead storage water in Lake Cle Elum Reservoir was not subject to the 1945 consent decree and was properly classified as 'project water'.
• The Vill. OF Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp.
  371 So. 2d 663· Fla.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a municipality cannot be held liable through inverse condemnation for depletion of groundwater from a shallow aquifer, because landowners have no constitutionally protected property right in the corpus of water beneath their land—only a limited
• People OF THE State OF Cal. v. United States
  235 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its broad declarations and findings regarding water rights, particularly concerning the effect of federal sovereignty within an enclave and the acquisition of rights by prescription or use, necessitating a remand.
• United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
  697 F.2d 851· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 28×
  The court upheld the district court's determination of water duties for farmers and the deference to the Nevada State Engineer for change applications, but vacated the water duty for public recreation pending further findings.
• S. Walls, Inc. v. Stilwell Corp. & Andrew O. Stilwell
  810 So. 2d 566· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-03-08 ·cited 26×
  Southern Walls appeals from a summary judgment holding that Andrew Stilwell's cooperative apartment qualifies for homestead exemption under the Florida Constitution and is therefore exempt from forced sale to satisfy a judgment. The Fifth District affirms, establishing that coope
• Division of Administration v. Frenchman, Inc.
  476 So. 2d 224· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-08-07 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury award of $190,000 in severance damages in a condemnation case involving the state's taking of a strip of land from a golf course, holding that the trial court erred by permitting cost-to-cure testimony without first esta
• Decca Ltd. v. The United States
  544 F.2d 1070· Ct. Cl.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States Government's Omega system infringes United States Patent No. 2,844,816, and that the infringement occurred within the territorial limits of the United States for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. Onelia Gutierrez and Angel Gutierrez
  433 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-07-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the permanent flooding of the appellees' land constituted a taking by inverse condemnation, but the temporary flooding of their residence did not, supporting a tort claim instead.
• Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City OF Bakersfield
  828 F.2d 514· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the City's refusal to consent to the water transfer was a foreseeable result of its statutory authority, entitling it to state action immunity from antitrust laws. The court also affirmed the denial of abstention.
• United States v. United States Dist. Court in & for S. Dist. of Cal.
  206 F.2d 303· 9th Cir.· 1953-08-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked the constitutional power to issue an order that effectively managed and controlled water flow through a court-appointed agent, as this constituted an administrative or executive function beyond the scope of a constitutional court's ju
• McCOMB v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.
  167 F.2d 911· 10th Cir.· 1948-04-23 ·cited 10×
  Employees of a mutual irrigation company are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act as agricultural employees, even if their work is necessary for the production of goods for commerce.
• Colville Confederated Tribes v. Boyd Walton, Jr.
  752 F.2d 397· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in reducing the Indian allottees' water share for non-use and in limiting the Tribe's fishery allocation based on other parties' usage; reserved rights are not reduced for non-use and are not limited by the usage of other parties with
• United States v. Anderson
  736 F.2d 1358· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that perfected water rights appurtenant to homesteaded lands reacquired by the Tribe will carry a priority determined under state law, not the original reservation date. It also held that the State of Washington has regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indian use of ex
• Division OF Administration v. W. Palm Beach Garden Club
  352 So. 2d 1177· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals from a condemnation judgment awarding $644,275 for land taken and $1,700,000 in severance damages for Dreher Park in West Palm Beach. The court affirms the land value award but reverses the severance damages award, holding that mer
• United States v. Hawkins Cnty.
  859 F.2d 20· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Tennessee's tax statute, which assessed federal property to a private contractor based on its use, was unconstitutional as it constituted an impermissible ad valorem tax on United States property.
• Hudspeth Cnty. Conservation & Reclamation Dist. NO. 1 v. Robbins
  213 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against federal officers acting within their statutory authority, even if their actions might be tortious, because such actions are considered those of the sovereign United States, which has not consented to be
• FOX et ux. v. Ickes
  137 F.2d 30· D.C. Cir.· 1943-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that water rights under the Reclamation Act are based on beneficial use, not contract, and the Secretary cannot impose additional charges for water beyond the original fixed construction charge without the consent of a majority of affected water-users.
• United States v. Tilley
  124 F.2d 850· 8th Cir.· 1941-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the contract did not assign the water rights and that seepage waters can be recaptured and reused under Nebraska law.
• United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
  887 F.2d 207· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The Department of Interior has rulemaking authority to establish initial classifications of project lands as bench or bottom, subject to state law beneficial use standards, and the Tribe has standing to participate in future land classification disputes.
• United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation Dist.
  330 F.2d 897· 9th Cir.· 1964-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court erred by failing to determine the extent and limitations of the defendants' water rights under Washington law as of 1908, instead adopting a master's report based on hypothetical needs rather than actual beneficial use.
• Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Zannaras
  229 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Bagdad's claims for fraud and forfeiture were barred by laches and limitations, affirming the lower court's judgment.
• Lehmitz v. Utah Copper Co.
  118 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1941-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that changes in point of diversion and use of water, made under an earlier-filed application, do not affect the priority of that original application and do not impair the rights of a junior appropriator.
• Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. BAR Found.
  993 F.2d 962· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Massachusetts IOLTA program does not violate the First Amendment rights of speech and association, nor does it constitute a taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• United States v. ORR Water Ditch Co.
  914 F.2d 1302· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that parties seeking to change water diversion points or uses under the Orr Ditch decree must first exhaust administrative remedies with the Nevada State Engineer, even when challenging the Engineer's jurisdiction.
• United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
  878 F.2d 1217· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 2×
• Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States
  657 F.2d 1126· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that storing San Juan-Chama water in Elephant Butte Reservoir for future resale, power generation, or municipal needs is not a beneficial use under New Mexico law because it is too remote or speculative, and federal law does not authorize such uses if they conflict
• Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd. v. Bell Brand Ranches, Inc.
  564 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court concurred in the result, finding that the plaintiff's claim involved genuine issues of material fact regarding the interpretation of a 1953 water decree and its effect on water rights, precluding summary judgment.
• Hunter v. United States
  388 F.2d 148· 9th Cir.· 1967-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the defendant established a right to water appropriation under federal law, this right did not automatically grant an easement for grazing livestock on public lands. However, a right of way for diverting the water was recognized.
• Zannaras v. Bagdad Copper Corp.
  284 F.2d 147· 9th Cir.· 1960-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's denial of damages was proper due to lack of evidence, and the injunction's form was reasonable given the limited nature of Zannaras' water rights and the policy against water waste.
• Lindsey v. McCLURE
  136 F.2d 65· 10th Cir.· 1943-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The State Engineer of New Mexico lacks jurisdiction to prohibit the storage and use of water in New Mexico for lands in Colorado, provided such use does not adversely affect water rights in New Mexico.
• United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
  965 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-26
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to consider the Tribe's claim that water rights were not perfected and by affirming the Engineer's findings on abandonment and forfeiture without proper review.
• Long v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Assn.
  820 F.2d 284· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15
  The court held that the federal reclamation statutes at issue do not confer a private right of action, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
• United States v. State OF Cal.
  694 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-20
  State conditions on a federal reclamation project are valid unless they are inconsistent with express or clearly implied congressional intent or work at cross-purposes with an important federal interest. The United States must follow state water law absent a pre-empting federal s
• Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. The United States
  695 F.2d 559· Fed. Cir.· 1982-12-10
  The court held that the tribe was not entitled to compensation for Salt River water rights for most of its reservation, but reversed the dismissal of the claim for 1,490 acres in the northwest section.