Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Long

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1989No. CV-86-0634-TPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HAIRE, Court of Appeals Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

To a large extent, I concur in the result reached by the majority, but not in the legal analysis that the majority uses to arrive in that result. My major disagreement with the result reached by the majority concerns surface water issues resulting from the Cities’ historical practice of discharging effluent into the Salt River Channel. I would hold that the right to dispose of sewage effluent by sale is included within the concept of full beneficial use of surface water and is not precluded by Arizona’s surface .water or…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Town of Chino Valley v. City of PrescottArizona Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Bristor v. CheathamArizona Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Wyoming Hereford Ranch v. Hammond Packing Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1925
  4. City & County of Denver v. SheriffSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
  5. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Shelton Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1975

17 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