Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 P3D 333 - Archuleta v. Gomez

Archuleta v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Weibert v. Rothe Bros., Inc. · Anderson v. Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc. · EMPIRE LODGE HOMEOWNERS'ASS'N v. Moyer · Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Southworth · Yunker v. Nichols

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Archuleta Ditch runs through Gomez's Upper Parcel. It ends at the boundary of Gomez's Lower Parcel. The Archuleta Ditch is operated on a 12 day rotation, in which Theodore Gomez has four days. He has used that water right to irrigate the Upper Parcel. It is undisputed that the Archuleta ditch has not extended as far east as the Lower Parcel, or to the Archuleta Property, since at least 1968, if indeed it ever reached. Between 1968 and his death in 1991, Lupe Archuleta was never granted or exercised a turn in the rotation, and no water from the Ar-chuleta Ditch was used on the Archuleta Property during that 18+ year period. Neither Lupe nor Ralph Archuleta ever contributed to the maintenance or repair of that ditch nor has any claim been made that Lupe and Ralph Archuleta's record ownership interest in the Archuleta Ditch was used by others with their permission. The question arose as to what benefit Archuleta received from the Archuleta Ditch, priority no. 30. The Court finds that the Archuleta Ditch does not reach the Ralph S. Archuleta property and has not since 1968.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Mr. Worley: Now, have they (Lupe Ar-chuleta or his son Ralph Archuleta) used tail water from time to time? Mr. Gomez: Well, he gets all my tail water. Sub-irrigated. Right now.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a] water right decreed for irrigation purposes cannot lawfully be enlarged beyond the amount of historical beneficial consumptive use belonging to the perfected right”
    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.