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. H. H. FRANCIS, Appellee, 1933 — 66 F.2d 1003 · caselaw · US
General
C. J. MOODY and C. J. Moody, as Project Manager of Flathead Reclamation Project, Appellant, v. H. H. FRANCIS, Appellee
66 F.2d 1003·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. H. H. FRANCIS, Appellee.
No. 6782.
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.
This is an appeal from a decree in form similar to the decrees entered in case No. 6785 this day decided. 66 F.(2d) 999. The record discloses a state of facts similar to those considered in that ease, with the exception that in this ease, while water rights for the irrigation of approximately 200 acres of land are asserted, water for the irrigation of only 57.2 acres of the land, described is covered by the committee report referred to in the opinion in case No. 6785.
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 his 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.