Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 10, 1997No. 96SA186Published

1DissentJustice Mullarkey

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion holding that the water court erred in refusing to allow Dallas Creek Water Company (DCWC) to be formally substituted as the real party in interest to the reasonable diligence action at issue in this case. By its own language, section 37-92-301(4)(a)(I), 15 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), requires that every six years the “owner or user” of a conditionally decreed water right “shall file an application for a finding of reasonable diligence, or said conditional water right shall be considered abandoned.” (Emphasis added.) In this case, the water court found…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissioners v. GallegosSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  3. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Cache Creek Mining TrustSupreme Court of Colorado · 1993
  4. Town of De Beque v. EnewoldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
  5. Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Blue River Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1988

7 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