Legal Opinion

Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District v. Robertson

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 2005No. CV-04-0385-SAPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BALES, Justice.

I

¶ 1 The issue presented is whether agricultural landowners have vested rights to certain irrigation water from the Central Arizona Project (“CAP”). The water is the subject of a master contract between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (“CAWCD”) and related subcontracts between these entities and the two petitioner irrigation districts. The landowners are not parties to these agreements. Because we hold that the landowners do not have vested rights to the CAP water in question, we vacate the trial court’s contrary ruling and remand…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Webb v. GittlenArizona Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Howell v. HodapCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  3. Quinn v. CardenasCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2023
  4. In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River SystemArizona Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Branigan v. FredricksonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014

3 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