Legal Opinion
McDonald v. State
Montana Supreme Court
Decided April 7, 1986No. 85-468PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sheehy
We determine here that the provisions of Section 85-2-234, MCA, applicable to final decrees issued by the Water Courts (and also applicable to preliminary decrees under Section 85-2-231, MCA), requiring the final decree to state “the amount of water, rate and volume included in the (water) right” are not unconstitutional *522as to direct flow irrigation water rights that have not heretofore been historically decreed or defined in terms of volume.
Esther McDonald and the other parties named as petitioners in the above caption brought this original action in the Montana Supreme Court by filing their…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Tucker v. Missoula Light & Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1926
- Smith v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- State Ex Rel. Schultz-Lindsay Construction Co. v. State Board of EqualizationMontana Supreme Court · 1965
- City of Billings v. SmithMontana Supreme Court · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2014
- In Re the Adjudication of the Existing Rights of Yellowstone RiverMontana Supreme Court · 1992
- In Re the Adjudication of the Existing Rights to the Use of All the WaterMontana Supreme Court · 2002
- Curry v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2016
- Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint ObjectorsMontana Supreme Court · 2016
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.