Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided May 11, 1953No. 5544Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSadler, Chief Justice
The opinion proposed by Mr. Justice McGLIEE for disposition of this appeal meets with my approval in the main, indeed, in all respects except as disagreement with it shall be pointed out in what is said hereinafter.
The first question resolved by him which brings about conflict in our views is the excess-land provision, sometimes called the 160-acre limitation. His discussion of it is initiated by quoting 1941 Comp., Sec. 77-3112, declaring the limitation to be in accord with the declared public policy of this state, followed by quoting Article 32 of the contract providing that the irrigation…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Block v. HirshSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Miller v. SchoeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. SaxlSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Green v. Town of GallupNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1941
- Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. PetrieIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.