Lummi Indian Nation v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtChambers, J.
¶1 In 1998, this court held that under then-existing law, new private water rights did not fully *251vest until the water was put to a beneficial use, and not merely when the “ ‘pumps and pipes’ ” capacity to use the water was built. Dep’t of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 586, 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). We cautioned then that we were not considering municipal water rights, which often receive separate treatment in water law. Id. at 594. In response to our opinion, the legislature amended the municipal water law, Second Engrossed Second Substitute H.B. 1338, 58th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2003)…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Lynce v. MathisSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- City of Redmond v. MooreWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- City of Redmond v. MooreWashington Supreme Court · 2004
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2017
- Cornelius v. Department of EcologyWashington Supreme Court · 2015
- Hambleton v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.