County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “California v. [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, supra, 490] did not clearly indicate whether [court’s] decision was based on an ‘occupy the field’ or ‘conflict’ theory of preemption”
• “Water for hydroelectric purposes may be diverted but ultimately is returned to the water system; it is usufructuary in nature and non[-] consumptive.”
• “Water for hydroelectric purposes may be diverted but ultimately is returned to the water system; it is usufructuary in nature and non[-] consumptive.”
• “Water for hydroelectric purposes may be diverted but ultimately is returned to the water system; it is usufructuary in nature and non[-] consumptive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).