Legal Opinion

Klamath Irrigation District v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided March 16, 2007No. Nos. 01-591 L, 01-5910L to 01-59125 LPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ALLEGRA Judge.

These consolidated cases have their genesis in temporary reductions made by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) on the use, for irrigation purposes, of the water resources of the Klamath Basin of southern Oregon and northern California. In their amended complaints, plaintiffs aver that the Bureau’s actions effectuated, alternatively, a takings and a breach of contract. Previously, this court held that plaintiffs’ interests in the use of Klamath Basin water did not constitute cognizable property interests for purposes of the Takings Clause, and,…

2Cases cited78 opinions

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Klamath Irrigation District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
  2. Klamath Irrigation District v. the United States 01-591l and 01-5910l Through 01United States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  3. Klamath Irrigation District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  4. Natural Resources Defense Council v. KempthorneDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
  5. Baley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019

10 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