Skip to main content
· 3/6/1917

Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co.

Citations

  • 243 U.S. 157
  • 37 S. Ct. 318
  • 61 L. Ed. 644
  • 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2103

Syllabus

<p>In a suit to determine the relative rights of the parties to divert water for irrigation from a stream in Nebraska, the state court decided that superiority of the defendant’s appropriation had ,been conclusively established against the plaintiff, consistently with due process, in proceedings before a state board, and, further' and independently, that .the plaintiff, having without objection stood by and permitted tbie defendant to go to enormous expense in the construction of a canal and diverting.works, was estopped to question the validity of . the defendant’s appropriation on which it relied. The ground of estoppel being distinct, non-federal, and fairly supported by the facts, Held, that this court had no jurisdiction to review, although the state board’s adjudication was» challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment.</p> <p>When the judgment of a state court is placed upon- two grounds, one involving a federal question and the other not, the jurisdiction of this court depends upon whether the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and also broad enough to sustain the judgment; if so, the judgment does not depend upon the decision of any-federal question, and this court has no power to disturb it.</p> <p>Where the non-federal is so interwoven with the federal ground as not to be independent, or, standing alone, is not of sufficient breadth to sustain the judgment, the jurisdiction of this court attaches.</p> <p>Where the non-federal ground is so certainly unfounded that it properly may be regarded as essentially arbitrary, or a mere device to prevent a review of the decision upon the federal question, the judgment rests upon the latter and may be reviewed here. ■</p> <p>But, where the non-federal ground has fair support, this court may not inquire whether the decision upon it is right or wrong.</p> <p>Questions of state law do not engage the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p>

Judges: Van Devanter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.