IN RE BRINK

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1951)
  …involved in this proceeding set aside the decision' of the department head. 117 Ct. Cl. 92. Although there was some dispute below, the parties now agree that the question decided by the department head was a question of fact. We granted certiorari, 341 U. S. 924, to clarify the rule of this Court which created an exception to the conclusiveness of such administrative decision. The same Article 15 of a government contract was before this Court recently, and we held, after a review of the authorities, that s…
• Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1976)
  …sted water rights in 1952. See n. 5, supra. The cases relied upon by the Cappaerts are not to the contrary. E. g., United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950); Ickes v. Fox, 300 U. S. 82 (1937); Dority v. New Mexico ex rel. Bliss, 341 U. S. 924 (1951). None involve a federal reservation and all involve a determination whether water rights had vested under state law. Here a federal reservation is involved and neither the Cappaerts nor their predecessors in interest had any vested water righ…
• Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 657 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir. 1981)
  …ater because it does not part with ownership; it only allows a usufructuary right to water. Holguin v. Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 91 N.M. 398, 575 P. 2d 88 (1977); State ex rel Bliss v. Dority, 55 N.M. 12, 225 P. 2d 1007 (1950), app. dismd. 341 U.S. 924, 71 S.Ct. 798, 95 L.Ed. 1356 (1951). What is the Meaning of Beneficial Use in the Present Context? Although the term “beneficial use” is not defined either in the New Mexico Constitution or Statutes, there are certain very important requisites of…