Archuleta v. Ditch Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Public Service Co. of Colorado v. F.E.R.C

    754 F.2d 1555 (10th Cir. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    Describing a hydroelectric plant with a direct-flow right of 1250 cubic feet per second (“cfs”)

    See Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Company, 6 Colo. 443 (1882). Under Colorado's prior appropriation doctrine, a water right is indeed a vested property right. Ackerman v. City of Walsenburg, 171 Colo. 304, 467 P.2d 267, 270 (1970); Green v. Chaffee Ditch Company, 150 Colo. 91, 371 P.2d 775, 783 (1962); Archuleta v. Boulder Weld County Ditch Co., 118 Colo. 43, 192 P.2d 891, 894 (1948). An interference with or taking of that right requires compensation to the owner.

  2. Velicer v. Falconhead Capital, LLC

    CASE NO. C19-1505JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2020)

    In addition, unlike claims for fraud under FIPA, common law fraud requires Plaintiffs to prove two additional elements: (1) that that the person who made the representation or omission knew that it was false; and (2) that the person intended that Plaintiffs should act on it. Adams v. King Cty., 192 P.2d 891, 902 (Wash. 2008).

  3. Cresson Co. v. Whitten

    139 Colo. 273 (Colo. 1959)   Cited 18 times

    '" In Archuleta v. Ditch Co., 118 Colo. 43, 192 P.2d 891, it is said: "The construction of a ditch and the application of water to a beneficial use completes an appropriation.