Dehaas v. Benesch’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably City & County of Denver v. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (1955), Metropolitan Suburban Water Users Ass'n v. Colorado River Water Conservation District (1961)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Platte Valley Irrigation Co. v. Buckers Irrigation, Milling & Improvement Co. · Comrie v. Sweet · Nevius v. Smith · Holbrook Irrigation District v. Fort Lyon Canal Co. · Faden v. Hubbell
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" * * * Is it essential to the acquisition of a water right that the claimant must file maps of his ditches, participate in water adjudications, and secure a decree of priority? "This question is answered in the negative. As between parties whose rights to the use of water never have been formally adjudicated, neither can claim an advantage over the other by reason of the absence of any decreed priorities in connection with the water in controversy. Our court said in De Haas v. Benesch, 116 Colo. 344 , 181 P.2d 453 , 456: "Whether or not ditches were constructed in accordance with the filings of maps and statements in compliance with statutory provisions, or whether any map and statement was filed or any new or enlarged ditch was actually constructed are matters of evidence only, and not of the substance of the appropriation. Water rights are not based on the filings of maps or statements. Such filings do not constitute appropriations nor lack thereof invalidate them. The statute providing that appropriators shall file map and statement nowhere declares such filings are essential to a valid appropriation; it declares only that a map and statement so filed shall be prima facie evidence in any court of intent to appropriate."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The burden of proof on the issue of whether water is or is not tributary, to a stream is upon the party asserting it is not tributary, not upon the one asserting that it is. The natural presumption is, that all flowing water finds its way to a stream. `The burden of proof in upon the one who has discovered certain subterranean water and claiming the same to show that such water is, in fact, "developed water." Therefore, whoever asserts that he is entitled to the exclusive use of water by reason of his having discovered and "developed" the same, must assure the Court by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not intercepting the tributaries of the main stream or other body to the waters of which others are entitled.' 2 Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights, 2d Ed., p. 2189, sec. 1206. See, also, 3 Farnham, Waters and Water Rights, p. 2088; Platte Valley Irr. Co. v. Buckers Irrigation, Milling & Improvement Co., 25 Colo. 77 , 53 P. 334 ; La Jara Creamery & Live Stock Ass'n v. Hansen, 35 Colo. 105 , 83 P. 644 ; Comrie v. Sweet, 75 Colo. 199 , 225 P. 214 ; Leadville Mine Development Co. v. Anderson, 91 Colo. 536 , 17 P.2d 303, 304 . * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The statute further provides that nothing therein contained shall be construed to the injury of those having rights prior to those of claimants, or so construed as to prevent a proper adjudication of rights in accordance with existing laws governing such adjudications."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.