Law Commons^™

Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement Of Dec. 19, 1986, State Of Colorado, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, United States Department Of The Interior, United States Department Of Justice, Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Florida Water Conservancy District, Mancos Water Conservancy District, Southwestern Water Conservation District, City Of Durango, Town Of Pagosa Springs, Florida Farmers Ditch Company, Florida Canal Company, Fairfield Communities, Inc.

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement (Dec. 10, 1986) The Ute Mountain Tribe is entitled to: water from the Dolores Project for municipal/industrial, irrigation and fish/wildlife purposes & development with a priority date of 1868. Repayment of construction costs allocable to irrigation purposes shall be deferred; water from the Animas-La Plata Project for municipal/ industrial and for irrigation with a priority date of 1868; water from the Mancos River for irrigation; water from the Navajo Wash for irrigation; and water from the San Juan River. The Southern Ute Tribe is entitled to: water from the …

Government Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Christina B. Whitman

Articles

This essay is about the language used to decide when governments should be held responsible for constitutional torts.' Debate about what is required of government officials, and what is required of government itself, is scarcely new. What is new, at least to American jurisprudence, is litigation against government units (rather than government officials) for constitutional injuries. 2 The extension of liability to institutional defendants introduces special problems for the language of responsibility. In a suit against an individual official it is easy to describe the wrong as the consequence of individual behavior that is inconsistent with community norms; the language …

The Development Of Entrapment Law, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

On The Exclusivity Of The Hague Evidence Convention, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

As the world grows smaller and nations become more interdependent, the likelihood that litigation will involve foreign property, parties, or activities increases tremendously. To prepare and conduct such litigation, the lawyer may need to obtain information "located" in a foreign jurisdiction: a person located abroad may know the information; documents located abroad may contain the information; or the information may describe conditions or property located abroad. The question of when relatively burdensome, internationally-approved methods of obtaining such information must be used thus becomes more and more important.

Consider a product liability suit for damages in the United States arising from …

Injury And The Disintegration Of Article Iii, Gene R. Nichol Jr.

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Bite Mark Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Litigating A Novel Course And Scope Of Employment Issue: Ina Of Texas V. Bryant, J. Thomas Sullivan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …

A Uniform Rule Governing The Admission And Practice Of Attorneys Before United States District Courts, Michael S. Ariens

Faculty Articles

The increase in the interstate and international practice of law necessitates a review of the rules governing the admission of attorneys to practice before federal district courts. By virtue of the sweep of their jurisdictional net, federal district courts are likely to be the fora for litigating most interstate or international disputes. The present rules, based upon the antiquated notion that lawyers only rarely practice law in federal district court, and then only in the federal district court located in the state in which they practice, do not address this change in the practice of law.

For these reasons, a …