Legal Opinion

Las Animas Consolidated Canal Co. v. Hinderlider

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 17, 1937No. 14,067PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Bubke

These parties are hereinafter referred to as the Las Animas company, the engineer, and the Fort Lyon company respectively; and the Catlin Consolidated Canal Company as the Catlin company. In an amended complaint setting forth the decreed priorities to the use of water for irrigation of the two companies first named and a certain contract, hereinafter referred to as “A,” signed by the three, and allegations of a violation of its rights thereunder, the Las Animas company sought herein a declaratory judgment defining the rights and status of these parties under said decrees and contract. Thereto…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Clark v. AshleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1905
  2. Water Supply & Storage Co. v. Larimer & Weld Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1898
  3. Reorganized Catlin Consolidated Canal Co. v. HinderliderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
  4. Kurtz v. Reorganized Catlin Canal Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1935

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Spring Creek Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Hess Bakken Inv., II, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
  2. Weingarten Realty Investors v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
  3. May v. United StatesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  4. Atmel Corp. v. VITESEE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. Bennett Bear Creek Farm Water & Sanitation District v. City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996

11 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