Citation network
Nebraska Vs. Wyoming
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1945
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. 589 (1945) U.S. Supreme Court Nebraska v. WyomingSearch
-
U.S. 589 (1945) Nebraska v. WyomingSearch
-
and dignity which makes the controversy a justiciable one within the original jurisdiction of this Court. Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
Farmers' Highline Canal & Reservoir Co. v. SouthworthSearch
-
Sternberger v. SeatonSearch
-
Moyer v. PrestonSearch
-
Wyo. 308, 44 P. 845. And see the discussion of the problem in Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
S. 419 , 259 U. S. 459 . Nebraska, on the other hand, was originally a riparian doctrine State. See Meng v. CoffeeSearch
-
The adoption of the rule of appropriation did not extinguish riparian rights which had previously vested. See Clark v. CambridgeSearch
-
Crawford Co. v. HathawaySearch
-
Osterman v. CentralSearch
-
violation of riparian rights by appropriators will not be enjoined, only compensation or damages being awarded. Cline v. StockSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
McCook Irrigation & Water Power Co. v. CrewsSearch
-
not so fully and clearly proved, as to warrant the intervention of this Court under our established practice. Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
indefinite future, is no basis for a decree in an interstate suit, since we cannot issue declaratory decrees. Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
jurisdiction of this Court is one of the alternative methods provided by the Framers of our Constitution. Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
Georgia v. TennesseeSearch
-
regions cannot help but be injurious. That was the basis for the apportionment of water made by the Court in Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
an equity suit to enjoin threatened injury, the showing made by Nebraska might possibly be insufficient. But Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
If there were a surplus of unappropriated water, different considerations would be applicable. Cf. Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that character and dignity which makes the controversy a justiciable one under our original jurisdiction. Colorado v. KansasSearch
-
Kansas) did not sustain the burden of showing that, since the earlier litigation between the States ( See Kansas v. ColoradoSearch
-
we made clear (320 U.S. p. 320 U. S. 392 , note 2) that we were not dealing there with a case like Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
California-Oregon Power Co. v. BeaverSearch
-
See Ickes v. FoxSearch
-
U. S. 614 pattern of state law as provided in the Reclamation Act. We can say here what was said in Ickes v. FoxSearch
-
of the landowners, wholly distinct from the property right of the government in the irrigation works. Compare Murphy v. KerrSearch
-
an actual diversion followed by an application within a reasonable time of the water to a beneficial use. See Murphy v. KerrSearch
-
Commonwealth Power Co. v. StateSearch
-
Kersenbrock v. BoyesSearch
-
by the United States of unappropriated water is largely academic so far as the narrow issues of this case are concerned. v. ThereSearch
-
river, we embark upon an enterprise involving administrative functions beyond our province. We noted in Colorado v. KansasSearch
-
entrusted to us by the Constitution. Those Page 325 U. S. 617 considerations did not prevail in Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
of the waters of an interstate stream was made. Nor did they prevail in the drainage canal cases. Wisconsin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. 179, 309 U. S. 309 U.S. 569, 311 U. S. 311 U.S. 107, 313 U.S. 547. And see Sanitary District v. UnitedSearch
-
Master recommended a decree based on that principle. That was indeed the principle adopted by the Court in Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
here. That does not mean that there must be a literal application of the priority rule. We stated in Colorado v. KansasSearch
-
But the decree which is fashioned must be based, as the special master recognized, on the dependable flow. Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
The fact that the same amount of water might produce more in lower sections of the river is immaterial. Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
Cf. Colorado v. KansasSearch
-
capacity in excess of the practicable limits of a dependable supply as that term has hitherto been construed. Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
supra. A mass allocation was made in Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
dismiss this very case on the ground, among others, that the Secretary of the Interior was a necessary party. Nebraska v. WyomingSearch
-
Scherck v. NicholsSearch
-
the amount of natural flow being taken in at the intakes cannot be considered as storage. See Gila Valley Irr. Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
since the Kendrick Project is not completed. We will consider first the return flow from natural drainage. Ide v. UnitedSearch
-
which was not susceptible of private appropriation under Wyoming law. The same conclusion was reached in United States v. TilleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial