Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. Inez Fuhrer SCHEER, Appellee, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1004 · caselaw · US
General
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. Inez Fuhrer SCHEER, Appellee
66 F.2d 1004·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. Inez Fuhrer SCHEER, Appellee.
No. 6783.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 27, 1933.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 6, 1933.
Before WILBUR, Circuit Judge, and JAMES and NORCROSS, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — NORCROSS, District Judge.]
NORCROSS, District Judge.
The decree appealed from in this case in character is similar to the decrees considered in eases No. 6785 (66 F.(2d) 999) and No. 6782 ( 66 F.(2d) 1003). Appellee'is the owner of 40 acres of land within the Irrigation Project and claims exemption from project construction, maintenance and operation costs because her said land acquired from an Indian allottee was subject to irrigation from waters diverted from Crow Creek within the Indian Reservation prior to the inception of such project.
The findings are silent on the fact whether or not the particular tract of land in question upon this appeal was ever irrigated prior to the inception of the Irrigation Project. The decree provides that appellee “is entitled to * * * water to irrigate thirty-five acres of her land.” In so far as there is any evidence upon the subject it is to the effect that this particular 40 acres had never been so irrigated.
The decree is reversed, and case remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the same for want of necessary party or parties, unless the plaintiff within a reasonable time amends her complaint to bring in, such necessary party or parties, and to take further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in the opinion of this court.