Legal Opinion

Department of Ecology v. Acquavella

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 1, 2002No. 20022-1-IIIPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

This is a water rights case. But the resolution turns on the application of the doctrine of res judicata. In the water rights adjudication here, the trial court confirmed the denial of water rights claims based on the failure of the claimant’s predecessor to assert the water rights in a 1921 water adjudication. We agree with the referee and the trial judge that the water rights claimed here appear nowhere in the 1921 decree. And the effect of this omission is to preclude the claimant from asserting these rights in this later adjudication. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court,…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Dugan v. RankSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Nevada v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. In Re Stranger CreekWashington Supreme Court · 1970

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Taliesen Corp. v. Razore Land Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  2. Taliesen Corp. v. Razore Land Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  3. Smale v. NoretepCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. State, Dept. of Ecology v. AcquavellaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  5. Smale v. NoretepCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API