Fremont-Madison Irrigation District v. United States Department of Interior’s Empirical Analysis
763 F.2d 1084 · 1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Alcaraz v. Block · City of Las Vegas Nevada v. Clark County Nevada · United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. · Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger v. National Labor Relations Board, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger v. National Labor Relations Board Natalie Allen, as Regional Director of Region 20, National Labor Relations Board · Triangle Mining Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whatever the merits of this argument, we note that the [irrigation district] has only argued one side of the coin,. i.e., under Idaho law [as made applicable under federal law], “[t]he word property ... signifies all valuable rights or interests which are protected by law.” [citation omitted, emphasis in original]. The so-called “hold-harmless” clause of paragraph 33 of the 1969 contract states that “[n]o liability shall accrue against [the government] for ... shortages in the quantity of water ... resulting from the failure of facilities of the ... storage system.... ” In light of this clause, it is unclear just how the rights and interests claimed by the [irrigation district] would be protected by law. Absent such protection, they cannot rise to the level of “property” under the law of Idaho. The [irrigation district's argument that [the federal statute] somehow unilaterally abrogated paragraph 33 of the 1969 contract is without merit.”
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.