Mccarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. § 666)

11 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Lenoir v. Porters Creek Watershed Dist.
  586 F.2d 1081· 6th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the United States is immune from flood damage claims under 33 U.S.C. § 702c, that contract and constitutional claims against the US exceeding $10,000 belong in the Court of Claims, and that Tennessee and Mississippi watershed/drainage districts are immune from
• United States v. Cappaert
  508 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Presidential Proclamation implicitly reserved groundwater necessary to preserve the endangered pupfish, and that federal law, not state law, governs these reserved rights. The court also held that the state engineer's decision did not have res judicata eff
• Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States
  601 F.2d 1116· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal order was final and appealable, and that the Tribe had alleged a sufficient case or controversy to invoke federal court jurisdiction.
• State OF Cal. v. Rank
  293 F.2d 340· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the suit was not a general adjudication of water rights and thus the United States had not consented to be sued under the McCarran Amendment, and the district court lacked jurisdiction over the United States. However, the suit could proceed against the officia
• The N. Cheyenne Tribe OF the N. Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Adsit
  668 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, arguing that state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate federal reserved water rights of the United States held in trust for Indians.
• Forehand v. First Ala. Bank OF Dothan
  727 F.2d 1033· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 11×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from hearing the § 1983 claim pending resolution of state court proceedings.
• SAN Carlos Apache Tribe OF Arizona v. The State OF Ariz.
  668 F.2d 1093· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-23 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would hold that wise judicial administration demands dismissal of the federal suits and would affirm the district court.
• United States v. Akin
  504 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and should not have abstained from hearing the case. The McCarran Amendment does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction over water rights cases brought by the United States.
• United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
  784 F.2d 917· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tribe's attempt to enjoin federal agents from performing their official duties was an action against the United States barred by sovereign immunity, and the Tribe lacked the authority to restrict federal officials.