Citation network
Washington Vs. Oregon
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 02, 1936
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
-
U.S. 517 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Washington v. OregonSearch
-
U.S. 517 (1936) Washington v. OregonSearch
-
landowners and water owners concerned in both states are governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation. Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
New York v. NewSearch
-
Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
well supported by the evidence. Complainant has brought forward no adequate reason for disturbing them. Connecticut v. MassachusettsSearch
-
This is not the high equity that moves the conscience of the court in giving judgment between states. North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
-
for removal more urgent and compelling, the tillers of the soil will be left where they have settled. Cf. Hough v. PorterSearch
-
Matheson v. WardSearch
-
complainant, more heavily, we have held, than in a suit for an injunction where states are not involved. North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
-
for use on distant lands. Such use is unlawful according to the rule in many courts ( Snake Creek Mining & Tunnel Co. v. MidwaySearch
-
Forbell v. NewSearch
-
People v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Bassett v. SalisburySearch
-
Patrick v. SmithSearch
-
Wash. 407, 134 P. 1076), though the decisions are not uniform. Acton v. BlundellSearch
-
a defined channel, instead of percolating vagrantly through rocks and sand and gravel. Snake Creek Mining & Tunnel Co. v. MidwaySearch
-
Boyce v. CupperSearch
-
Hayes v. AdamsSearch
-
Meyer v. TacomaSearch
-
Horne v. UtahSearch
-
Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. ComptonSearch
-
by those courts that have placed the narrowest restrictions on the use of percolating waters. Maricopa County District v. SouthwestSearch
-
Los Angeles v. PomeroySearch
-
McClintock v. HudsonSearch
-
Los Angeles v. HunterSearch
-
Cf. Ide v. UnitedSearch
-
of a river. New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
is beneficial use, not a stale or barren claim. Only diligence and good faith will keep the privilege alive. Seaweard v. PacificSearch
-
Ham v. SuperiorSearch
-
as of 1892. The decree was of no force against Oregon or Oregon appropriators not parties to the suit. United States v. OregonSearch
-
Priest v. LasSearch
-
and not between private litigants, the burden and quantum of the proof being governed accordingly. North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the costs and expenses of the suit to be divided between the parties in accordance with the usual practice. Michigan v. WisconsinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Washington v. OregonSearch
-
Cf. Hough v. PorterSearch
-
Snake Creek Mining & Tunnel Co. v. MidwaySearch
-
Acton v. BlundellSearch
-
Maricopa County District v. SouthwestSearch
-
New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
Seaweard v. PacificSearch
-
Ham v. SuperiorSearch
-
Michigan v. WisconsinSearch
-
Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Kansas v. ColoradoSearch
-
United States v. OregonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial