State ex rel. Cary v. Cochran
Nebraska Supreme Court
138 Neb. 163, 292 N.W. 239 (1940)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Central Power Company (Central) (plaintiff) had appropriative water rights on the Platte River for a minimum flow of 162 second-feet (sf) of water to support power operations at the head of the Kearney Canal with an established priority date of 1882. Central (joined by various irrigation water users on the Kearney Canal) filed a mandamus action to require the state bureau of irrigation (the bureau) (defendant) to enforce its water rights. Central contended that water appropriators upstream with junior rights—i.e., later in time—were diverting water to Central’s detriment. The broad and shallow nature of the Platte River causes the river to suffer a substantial loss of water along its course due to evaporation and percolation. As a result, the river required 700 sf of water at the North Platte to deliver Central’s 162 sf of water at the head of the Kearney Canal. At times, the North Platte’s water flow was insufficient to provide any water flow at the Kearney Canal head. The bureau contended that it acted appropriately in allowing the water diversion by the junior water-right holders because, at the times in question, any attempt to maintain the water flow for Central’s use was futile due to the evaporation and percolation. The trial court denied the writ of mandamus, and Central appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.