FWS Land & Cattle Co. v. State, Division of Wildlife

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site
• holding that a water court properly refused to determine \a right to use lands underlying a reservoir [because it] involve[d] real property issues and only tangentially involve[d] water matters\
• stating that the can and will requirement was adopted by the General Assembly in order to restrict the issuance of purely speculative conditional water rights
• stating that the can and will requirement was adopted by the General Assembly in order to restrict the issuance of purely speculative conditional water rights
• water court’s function of determining a water right “includes the quantification of the amount and priority of absolute and conditional water rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).