Legal Opinion
Baley v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided September 29, 2017No. Nos. 1-591L; 7-194C; 7-19401C; 7-19402C; 7-19403C; 7-19404C; 7-19405C; 7-19406C; 7-19407C; 7-19408C; 7-19409C; 7-19410C; 7-19411C; 7-19412C; 7-19413C; 7-19414C; 7-19415C; 7-19416C; 7-19417C; 7-19418C; 7-19419C; 7-19420CPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Takings, Physical or Regulatory Taking, Permanent or Temporary Taking, Water Rights, Tribal Rights, Endangered Species Act, Federal Reserved Rights; Motions for Reconsideration.
FINDINGS OF FACT
MARIAN BLANK HORN, Judge
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are a consolidated class of farmers in southern Oregon and northern California, who claim they held a right to receive water from the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath River Basin reclamation project (the Klamath Project) in 2001. The cases arise from the government’s actions in 2001, when defendant,…
2Cases cited200 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Scott v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
195 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Penna v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021