O’neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U.S. 20 (1916)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
O’neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U.S. 20 (1916)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 242 U.S. 15, click here.
O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Company No. 68 Argued November 6, 1916 Decided November 20, 1916 242 U.S. 20
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Syllabus
Under the laws of Colorado here applicable, as construed by her highest court, a suit by a claimant of a water right in one water district to contest a water priority defined by a general adjudication in another is barred if not brought within four years from the rendition of the decree.
A state law which provides for a public adjudication of property rights in a given subject matter and declares that even persons who are not entitled to be heard in the proceeding shall ultimately be bound does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment quoad such persons if it allows them an adequate opportunity, including a reasonable time, to assert their rights in other judicial proceedings.
A judicial construction of a statute, supportable by frank reasoning and not subversive of any earlier judicial construction upon which a party might be held to have relied, does not deprive him of due process though it take him by surprise and come too late for him to act upon it, and thus save his rights.
A departure by state decision from a rule of property established by earlier state decisions may not be relied on, without more, as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sauer v. New York, 206 U.S. 536; Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67.
56 Colo. 545 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," O’neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U.S. 20 (1916) in 242 U.S. 20 242 U.S. 24. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LRMV5BTL5EGSERU.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." O’neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U.S. 20 (1916), in 242 U.S. 20, page 242 U.S. 24. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LRMV5BTL5EGSERU.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in O’neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U.S. 20 (1916). cited in 1916, 242 U.S. 20, pp.242 U.S. 24. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LRMV5BTL5EGSERU.
|