Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Rights Ex Rel. Gila River, 830 P.2d 442.

46 citing documents.

Harter v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Harter v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
to Use of Gila River, (citation omitted).
Loiselle v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Loiselle v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
to Use of Gila River, (citation omitted).
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006)
United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 45- 252(C) (2016) (“The general adjudication shall be brought and maintained in the superior court in the county in which the largest number of potential claimants resides.”); (describing consolidation of stream adjudications in the Maricopa County Superior Court).
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. 384 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. 384 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Gila III, 195 Ariz. at 420, ¶ River, P.2d 442 (1992) (Gila I); P.2d 658 (1985).
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
3201 , 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983); In re Rights to the Use of the Gila River (Gila I), -33 , -45 (1992); Superior Court, 144 Ariz. at 269-71 , 697 P.2d at 662-64 ; John E. Thorson et al.. Dividing Western Waters: A Century of Adjudicating Rivers and Streams, Part II, 9 U. Denv.
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
P. 16(a); 139 Ariz. LVI (1984); G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc); n.24, n.24 (1992).
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 224 P.3d 178 Ariz. 2010
In Re: Gila River System Ariz. 2010
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 224 P.3d 178 Ariz. 2010
The background facts and procedural history of the Gila River general stream adjudication are provided in several cases, , 202 ¶¶ 2-3, and In re Rights to the Use of the Gila River (Gila River I), -33 , -45 (1992).
In Re: Gila River System Ariz. 2010
enacted the Arizona Water 1 The background facts and procedural history of the Gila River general stream adjudication are provided in several cases, ¶¶ 2-3, and In re Rights to the Use of the Gila River (Gila River I), -33, -45 (1992).
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 203 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2009
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 203 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2009
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 174 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 174 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Relying on , (“Gila River I”), the superior court agreed.
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System 173 P.3d 440 Ariz. 2007
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System 173 P.3d 440 Ariz. 2007
County of Maricopa, ¶ 3 , -33, -45 (1992) (Gila River I).
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 127 P.3d 882 Ariz. 2006
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 127 P.3d 882 Ariz. 2006
See In the Matter of the Rights to the Use of the Gila River (“Gila I”), -33, -45 (1992).3 In 1995, the Legislature declared that “an early focus by the general stream adjudication courts” should be “the trial of Indian and non-Indian federal 2 The first Ninth Circuit decision involving the Decree was Gila Valley Irrigation District v. United Stat
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 35 P.3d 68 Ariz. 2001
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 35 P.3d 68 Ariz. 2001
3201, 3209-10 , 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983) (subsection entitled “The Arizona Cases”); -33 , -45 (1992); -71 , -64 (1985) (subsection entitled “The Controversy”).
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 989 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1999
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 989 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1999
¶ 4 A detailed procedural history of this case may be found in Gila River II, 175 Ariz. at 384-86 , 857 P.2d at 1238-40 , and In the Matter of the Rights to the Use of the Gila River (“Gila River I”), -33 , -45 (1992).
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton 977 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton 977 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
(hereinafter Gila River Adjudication I).
Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins 978 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins 978 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue 969 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue 969 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
V, XIV; Ariz. Const., art. II, § 4; , -48 (1992); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 , 70 S.Ct.
State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 875 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 875 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 318 , 70 S.Ct.
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
3201 , 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983); -71 , -64 (1985), -33 , -45 (1992).
Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
233 n. 26, , 455 n. 26 (1992) (citing Rule 16(c)(10), (17), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.
Hedlund v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hedlund v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
We also note that the supreme court did indicate in In the Matter of the Rights to the Use of the Gila River, Salt River Project/Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, , that it might reexamine its Lam-bright decision in criminal cases.