Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bryant Vs. Yellen

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1980

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

48 entries 1 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Warth Vs. Seldin US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  2. U.S. 352 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Bryant v. Yellen
    Search
  3. U.S. 352 (1980) Bryant v. Yellen
    Search
  4. of 1929 by the actual diversion of a specific quantity of water and its application to a defined area of land. Arizona v. California
    Search
  5. and its implementation in this Court's opinion and decrees in Arizona v. California
    Search
  6. contained its own formula for allocating Lower Basin water among California, Arizona, and Nevada, Arizona v. California
    Search
  7. Such an action, entitled Hewes v. All
    Search
  8. was required by both the Compact and the Project Act. After more than 10 years of litigation, the opinion in Arizona v. California
    Search
  9. that Hewes v. All
    Search
  10. In these circumstances, the Court of Appeals ruled that, under Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
    Search
  11. of the Project Act and adjudicated by this Court in Arizona v. California
    Search
  12. defense to the application of the 1926 Act's acreage limitation to be unpersuasive. Arizona v. California
    Search
  13. of the Project Act and its implementation in our opinion and decrees filed in the Arizona v. California
    Search
  14. perfected right is a water right originating under state law. In Arizona v. California
    Search
  15. relying on Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All
    Search
  16. although they have some weight, are not the most reliable indications of congressional intention. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  17. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
    Search
  18. Together with No. 79-425, California et al. v. Yellen
    Search
  19. et al., and No. 79-435, Imperial Irrigation District et al. v. Yellen
    Search
  20. The genesis of the Project Act and of the Colorado River Compact is described at greater length in Arizona v. California
    Search
  21. s tying the Project Act and the Compact together, provided the basis for the Court's holding in Arizona v. California
    Search
  22. A district was also permitted to submit the contract to Superior Court for validation proceedings. The decree in Hewes v. All
    Search
  23. General, however, without the concurrence of the Department, answered the inquiry of the Special Master in Arizona v. California
    Search
  24. same opinion in the Ivanhoe litigation. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  25. profits from the increase in value of their lands resulting from the federal project. See also Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  26. definition did not reach all appropriative water rights under state law. See Report of Special Master, Arizona v. California
    Search
  27. reclamation law generally, the import of the Court's opinion in this respect was considerably narrowed in California v. United
    Search
  28. is obviously one of federal law. See Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  29. California v. United
    Search
  30. Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All
    Search
  31. Parties and Persons, 47 Cal.2d 597, 624625, 306 P.2d 824, 840 (1957), rev'd sub nom. Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  32. landowners have a legally enforceable right, appurtenant to their lands, to continued service by the District. Erwin v. Gage
    Search
  33. South Pasadena v. Pasadena
    Search
  34. water could be denied to farms exceeding the acreage limitation without violating state law. Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All
    Search
  35. In Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  36. limitation would be inapplicable to the lands served under such rights. As the Special Master observed in Arizona v. California
    Search
  37. U.S. Supreme Court Bryant v. Yellen
    Search
  38. Arizona v. California
    Search
  39. California, Arizona, and Nevada, Arizona v. California
    Search
  40. Hewes v. All
    Search
  41. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
    Search
  42. the Arizona v. California
    Search
  43. In Arizona v. California
    Search
  44. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  45. Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  46. See Report of Special Master, Arizona v. California
    Search
  47. See Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  48. the District. Erwin v. Gage
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial