Legal Opinion

Twin Falls Canal Co. v. American Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 23, 1932No. 6613PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts).’-'

Two questions are presented: First, is American Falls reservoir district No. 2 a party in interest — the proper party defendant?

It is obvious from the findings of fact and the record that not only is title to the system in issue in the United States, but that it has exclusive control and entire supervision of construction and will have until the project is completed, and the management and operation will remain in it until otherwise provided by tifie Congress. 43 USCA §§ 498, 523, 524. Livanis v. Northport Irr. Dist., 121 Neb. 777, 238 N. W. 757; Id., 120 Neb.…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. United States v. LynahSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. Omnia Commercial Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  4. Gibson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. Langford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Burley Irr. Dist. v. IckesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
  2. Davis v. Lugert-Altus Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
  3. United States v. Power CountyDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1937
  4. Nicolson v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
  5. White v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API