Citation network
Cappaert Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Cappaert v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 426 U.S. 128 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Cappaert v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) Cappaert v. UnitedSearch
-
in nonnavigable water in accordance with state law, does not apply to water rights of federal reserved land, FPC v. OregonSearch
-
federal enclaves, encompassing water rights in navigable and nonnavigable streams. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. DistrictSearch
-
Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Winters v. UnitedSearch
-
of those cases shows they do not analyze the doctrine in terms of a balancing test. For example, in Winters v. UnitedSearch
-
waters are necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created. See, e.g., Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
however, reserves only that amount of water necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, no more. Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cameron v. UnitedSearch
-
in nonnavigable water in accordance with state law. California Page 426 U. S. 144 Oregon Power Co. v. BeaverSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
This Court held in FPC v. OregonSearch
-
Page 426 U. S. 145 The Cappaert petitioners argue that FPC v. OregonSearch
-
Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
States be joined as a party in a state court general water rights' adjudication, Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
nor was the United States in privity with the Cappaerts. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
in the District Court was not decided in the proceedings before the State Engineer. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
of Illinois Foundation, supra at 402 U. S. 323 . Cf. United States v. UtahSearch
-
Together with No. 74-1304, Nevada ex rel. Westergard v. UnitedSearch
-
Nevada is asking, in effect, that the Court overrule Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 546 (1963), and United States v. DistrictSearch
-
as determined by state law. California Oregon Power Co. v. BeaverSearch
-
Jones v. AdamsSearch
-
a right to its continued use as long as the water is beneficially diverted. See Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
The cases relied upon by the Cappaerts are not to the contrary. E.g., United States v. GerlachSearch
-
Dority v. NewSearch
-
predecessors in interest had any vested water rights in 1952, when the United States' water rights vested. Nebraska v. WyomingSearch
-
In Nebraska v. WyomingSearch
-
Nevada argues that the discussion of the implied reservation doctrine in FPC v. OregonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cappaert v. UnitedSearch
-
Cameron v. UnitedSearch
-
Oregon Power Co. v. BeaverSearch
-
the Cappaerts. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
the State Engineer. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
Cf. United States v. UtahSearch
-
Westergard v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. DistrictSearch
-
California Oregon Power Co. v. BeaverSearch
-
See Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., United States v. GerlachSearch
-
United States v. PowersSearch
-
Nebraska v. WyomingSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial