| Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 31, 1938 Decided April 25, 1938 | |
| Full case name | Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. |
| Citations | 304 U.S. 92 (more) 58 S. Ct. 803; 82 L. Ed. 1202 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 101 Colo. 73, 70 P.2d 849 (1937) |
| Holding | |
| Federal common law applies to resolve water rights governed by an interstate compact. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Brandeis |
| Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938), is a US Supreme Court case that said a "general common law" or "general federal common law" no longer exists in the American legal system and is unconstitutional. However, federal courts retain the power to create federal common law in specific areas related to federal rights and interests.[1]
Facts
This dispute revolved around diverting water from the La Plata River, a tributary to the Colorado River.
Judgment
Significance
An archetypical example of such federal common law is that relating to disputes between states of the United States. Hinderlider was the first case to reaffirm the existence of federal common law for other purposes, specifically here, the interpretation of an interstate compact governing water rights between states.[2]
See also
References
External links
Works related to Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. at Wikisource- Text of Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938) is available from: Justia Library of Congress
This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:22