A summary of typical cases involving Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America , Plaintiff and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Appellant, v. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant, and Nevada State Engineer; Rambling River Ranches, Inc., Appellees;
United States of America , Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Company, a corporation, Defendant, and Rambling River Ranches, Inc., Appellee, Larry Fritz; Gaylord Blue Equity Trust, Applicants-Appellees;
United States of America , Plaintiff-Appellant, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Intervenor-Appellee, v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Company, a corporation, Defendant, and Rambling River Ranches, Inc., Appellee, Larry Fritz; Gaylord Blue Equity Trust; Herbert Lohse, Applicants-Appellees.
Nos. 00-15688, 00-15690, 00-15692.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
GRANTS PASS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant, v. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT and Water Resources Commission, Respondents.
(98-CV-0345; CA A104582)
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2000 at Corvallis, Oregon.
Decided May 17, 2000.
Irrigation district sought judicial review of notice of proposed action initiating a contested case proceeding of the Water Resources Commission, and granting party status to advocacy group. The Circuit Court, Josephine County, Alan H. Coon, J., dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. District appealed. The Court of Appeals, De Muniz, P. J., held that the notice of proposed action was not a “final order,” as basis for judicial review under Administrative Procedures Act.
Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
WATERWATCH OF OREGON, INC., an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, and Oregon Trout, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Appellants, v. BOEING AGRI-INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Oregon Water Resources Department, Martha Pagel, in her official capacity as Director, and Oregon Water Resources Commission, Respondents, and Inland Land Company, L.L.C., Intervenor-Respondent.
(96C-11192; CA A95109)
Argued and Submitted on June 8, 1998.
Decided Aug. 5, 1998.
Environmental group sought judicial review of Water Resources Department’s order in noncontested case extending time for water rights holder to develop and irrigate state-owned land. The Circuit Court, Marion County, Rodney Miller, J., dismissed for lack of standing. Environmental group appealed. The Court of Appeals, Landau, J., held that, even assuming Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provision defining “party” applied to water rights proceedings, Department’s acceptance of environmental group’s petition for reconsideration, before the Department denied the petition, did not constitute the naming of the environmental group as a party to the noncontested case and did not constitute a determination of party status.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Peter KUSYK, Kurt Dalbey, John G. Eckmann, Randy Lovre, Barbara Lovre, Jack Harper, K. Thatcher Loen, Claudia Rohr and Beacon Homes, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Respondents, v. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOR the STATE OF OREGON and Water Resources Commission for the State of Oregon, Appellants.
(CCV-96-1-443; CA A100946)
Argued and Submitted Dec. 23, 1998.
Decided Jan. 5, 2000.
Applicant sought review of Water Resource Department’s order conditionally approving application to transfer ground water right certificates. The Circuit Court, Clackamas County, Eve L. Miller, J., granted summary judgment for applicant, and awarded it attorney fees. Department appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wollheim, J., held that: (1) decision of trial court was in favor of applicant and thus met threshold statutory requirement for award of attorney fees, but (2) record was inadequate to support award of fees.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
A.D. DORITY, Jr., Trustee of the A.D. Dority, Jr. Trust, Theo M. Dority, Trustee of the Theo M. Dority Trust, Arthur D. Dority, III, Diane M. Dority, Deri C. Dority, Meri Lee Dority Clarke, Mark McKay, Dean McKay, Mark McKay Farms, Inc., an Oregon corporation, and Dean McKay Farms, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Appellants, v. Irene HILLER, Trustee of the Irene Hiller Trust, John Coleman, William Coleman, Coleman Farms, Inc., an Oregon corporation, and Fairfield Farms, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Respondents.
(96C-11125; CA A99563)
Argued and Submitted Dec. 15, 1998.
Decided Aug. 25, 1999
Putative licensors for steel irrigation pipeline in licensors’ land brought quiet title action, and putative licensees counterclaimed, claiming an irrevocable license. The Circuit Court, Marion County, Rodney W. Miller, J., granted partial summary judgment for licensees and granted an injunction. Licensors appealed. The Court of Appeals, Edmonds, P.J., held that: (1) evidence established an irrevocable license; (2) licensees’ efforts to bury a plastic irrigation pipeline at a location different from the location of the steel irrigation pipeline did not constitute an abandonment of the license; (3) evidence did not establish that licensors had a property right in the plastic pipeline; and (4) trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting injunction requiring licensors to remove riser and restore the pipeline connection.
Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
KINROSS COPPER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE of Oregon, Respondent.
(960906900; CA A98316)
Argued and Submitted May 13, 1998.
Decided May 19, 1999.
Lessee of unpatented mining claims brought inverse condemnation claims against state, alleging that state’s denial of wastewater discharge permit in connection with proposed mining operations reduced the value of the claims to zero. The Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Henry Kantor, J., granted summary judgment to state. Lessee appealed. The Court of Appeals, Landau, P.J., held that lessee of unpatented mining claims had no private property right to discharge wastewater into rivers of the state without complying with state law regarding creation and recognition of state water rights, and thus, state’s denial of lessee’s application for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit based on “three basin rule” was not a taking of a property right.
Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
A.D. DORITY, Jr., and Dan Dority, III, Respondents, v. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT for the State of Oregon and the Water Resources Commission for the State of Oregon, Appellants.
96C-10450; CA A94934.
Argued and Submitted May 15, 1997.
Decided July 2, 1997.
Farm land owners petitioned for review of Water Resources Department decision rejecting as untimely owners’ protest against Department’s proposed final order, which approved city’s water use application, for failure to timely include statutory protest fee. Department and owners moved for summary judgment. The Circuit Court, Marion County, Don A. Dickey, J., granted owners’ motion. Department appealed. The Court of Appeals, Leeson, J., held that: (1) Department did not violate governing statute when it rejected owners’ protest, and (2) Department could not, by cashing owners’ untimely protest fee check, waive its right to dismiss owners’ protest as untimely.
Reversed and remanded.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
TEEL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Petitioner on Review, v. The WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF the STATE OF OREGON and The Water Resources Commission for the State of Oregon, Respondents on Review.
CC 93-0201; CA A81025; SC S42457.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1996.
Decided July 25, 1996.
Reconsideration Denied Oct. 8, 1996.
Irrigation district challenged orders by Water Resources Commission and Water Resources Department concerning water appropriation. The Circuit Court, Umatilla County,Rudy Murgo, J. pro tem., set aside orders, and Commission and Department appealed.The Court of Appeals, Warren, P.J., reversed in part, 898 P.2d 1344.District appealed. The Supreme Court, Van Hoomissen, J., held that: (1) claim on alternate acreage was moot; (2) watermaster had authority to issue final order; (3) 1991 letter was final order subject to judicial review; (4) 1993 letter reiterating earlier position was not subject to review; and (5) district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petition.
Court of Appeals judgment vacated in part and affirmed in part.
Circuit Court judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.
In the Matter of the Air Contaminant Discharge Permit Application of Willamette Industries, Inc. LOCAL NO. 290, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS, and on behalf of Certain Individual Members Residing in Albany, Oregon, et al., and Royce Clouse, Respondents on Review, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and The Environmental Quality Commission of Oregon, Petitioners on Review, and WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner on Review.
In the Matter of the AIR CONTAMINANT DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION OF GLENBROOK NICKEL COMPANY and In the Matter of the NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION OF GLENBROOK NICKEL COMPANY. LOCAL NO. 290, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS and Certain Individual Members, Respondents on Review, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Petitioners on Review, and The ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION OF OREGON, Defendant, and GLENBROOK NICKEL COMPANY, Petitioner on Review.
CC 9302-00754, 9204-02467; CA A81725, A82407; SC S42666, S42667, S42668, S42677.
Argued and Submitted May 9, 1996.
Decided July 18, 1996.
Plumbers and pipefitters union and named individual petitioner challenged air and water discharge permits issued by Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under state Administrative Procedures Act (APA). DEQ moved for summary judgment claiming union lacked standing. The Multnomah County Circuit Court, Philip Roth and Lee Johnson, JJ., granted DEQ’s motions and dismissed cases. Union appealed. The Court of Appeals, per curiam, 136 Or.App. 544, 901 P.2d 919, and Deits, P.J., 136 Or.App. 213, 901 P.2d 921, reversed and remanded. DEQ appealed and cases were consolidated. The Supreme Court, Gillette, J., held that: (1) union was person under APA; (2) union was not aggrieved by agency decision; (3) there was no representational standing under APA; (4) individual petitioner was not aggrieved; and (5) union and petitioner did not have standing to maintain proceeding.
Court of Appeals judgments reversed, Circuit Court judgments affirmed.
Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.
TEEL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. The WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT for the State of Oregon and the Water Resources Commission for the State of Oregon, Appellants.
93-0201; CA A81025.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided June 21, 1995.
Water Resources Department and Water Resources Commission appealed a decision of the Circuit Court, Umatilla County, Rudy Murgo, J., setting aside three orders that limited irrigation district’s use of water under two water rights permits. The Court of Appeals, Warren, P.J., held that: (1) trial court erred in setting aside order denying district’s alternate acreage petition; (2) district could not seek review of prior order by seeking review of department’s further confirmation of that order in letter to district 14 months after order; (3) where agency challenged trial court’s decision as to substitution issue on only one of trial court’s three bases for decision, ruling would be upheld on unchallenged basis; and (4) trial court erred in entering an injunction against department.
Reversed in part and otherwise affirmed.
Edmonds, J., filed concurring opinion.
Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.
HERMISTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant, v. The WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT for the STATE of Oregon and the Water Resources Commission for the State of Oregon, Respondents.
CV 930-396; CA A80718.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 26, 1994.
Decided Dec. 14, 1994.
Irrigation district petitioned for judicial review of order of the Water Resources Department and Water Resources Commission. The Circuit Court, Umatilla County, Jeff M. Wallace, J., entered judgment for Department, and district appealed. The Court of Appeals, Warren, P.J., held that there was no basis for judicial review of Department’s action, and trial court lacked jurisdiction over the petition.
Judgment vacated, and case remanded.
Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.
STATE ex rel. CIRCUS CIRCUS RENO, INC.; Circus Circus Casinos, Inc.; and Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs-Relators, v. Honorable Milo POPE, Judge of the Circuit Court for Grant County, Defendant.
No. SC S39868.
Argued and Submitted May 7, 1993.
Decided July 1, 1993.
Nonresident filed original mandamus proceeding to compel judge to dismiss complaint filed against it. The Supreme Court, Graber, J., held that Circuit Court lacked personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant.
Peremptory writ to issue.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, and Water Commissioners of the Sixth Judicial District Court, Petitioners, Pershing County Water Conservation District, Petitioner-Intervenor v. SOUTH FORK BAND OF THE TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA; Marvin McDade, in his capacity as Chairman of the South Fork Band Council; and the United States of America, as Trustee for the South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, Respondents.
No. CV-N-98-679-ECR(RAM).
Aug. 30, 2000.
State sued Indian tribe to enforce state court water rights decree. Suit was removed to federal court, and state moved to remand. The District Court, 66 F.Supp.2d 1163, denied motion. On reconsideration, the District Court, Edward C. Reed, Jr., J., held that Colorado River abstention was warranted.
Motion granted.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, and Water Commissioners of the Sixth Judicial District Court, Petitioners, v. SOUTH FORK BAND OF THE TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA; Marvin McDade, in his capacity a Chairman of the South Fork Band Council; andthe United States of America, as Trustee for the South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, Respondents.
No. CV-N-00679-ECR (RAM).
Aug. 20, 1999.
State sued Indian tribe to enforce state court water rights decree. Suit was removed to federal court. On state’s motion to remand, and tribe’s motion to abstain, the District Court, Edward C. Reed, Jr., J., held that: (1) suit was properly removed; (2) court had subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) abstention was not warranted.
Motions denied.