Loading…

Deines v. Maples — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Deines v. Maples

130 Colo. 518 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Nov 29, 1954

Full text

Deines v. Maples

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed en banc without written opinion.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 7881858

Citations

130 Colo. 518
1954 Colo. LEXIS 325
276 P.2d 992

Cited by

State Ex Rel. Office of the State Eng'r v. Gray
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2021
Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Burlington Ditch Reservoir & Land Co
Supreme Court of Colorado · Nov 23, 2020
City & Cty. of Denver v. Consol. Ditches of Water Dist. No. 2
Supreme Court of Colorado · Jul 1, 2019
Grand Valley Water Users Ass'n v. Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc.
Supreme Court of Colorado · Dec 5, 2016
Curry v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.
Montana Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2016
City of Colorado Springs v. Climax Molybdenum Co.
Tenth Circuit · Nov 25, 2009
Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation District v. Trout Unlimited
Supreme Court of Colorado · Oct 22, 2007
In Re Vought
Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 16, 2003

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Vought v. Stucker Mesa Domestic Pipeline Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 16, 2003

Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Getty Oil Exploration Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 10, 2000

City of Grand Junction v. City & County of Denver

Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 18, 1998

City of Lafayette v. New Anderson Ditch Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 14, 1998

Parentheticals

"when appropriations are sought by a growing city, regard should be given to its reasonably anticipated requirements."
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Theodoratus
“when appropriations are sought by a growing city, regard should be given to its reasonably anticipated requirements.”
Department of Ecology v. Theodoratus
“when appropriations are sought by a growing city, regard should be given to its reasonably anticipated requirements.”
Curry v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.
reasonable diligence is the steady application of constant effort to accomplish an undertaking
Trans-County Water, Inc. v. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District