Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that third-party beneficiary status does not result merely because a government contract operates to benefit identified non-parties; evidence of a clear intent to confer such status is required
• holding that the water rights of the Klamath, Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes “take precedence over any alleged rights of the Irrigators,” who use Klamath project water
• holding that the water rights of the Klamath, Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes “take precedence over any alleged rights of the Irrigators,” who use Klamath project water
• finding that the third parties were not intended beneficiaries without discussing whether the term “third-party beneficiary” was used in the contract
• noting that in construing provisions in a 2 written contract, the terms should be read as a whole and “preference” should be “given to 3 reasonable interpretations.”
• providing that the Tribes’ senior rights “carry a priority date of time immemorial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson
  Ninth Circuit· 2000-01-28· cited 4×
• Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-09-09· cited 2×