Overview

Title: Charles E. Hancock Collection of Nevada water Court Cases
Creator(s): Hancock, Charles E., 1874-
Collection Number: 91-54
Dates (inclusive): 1974-1986
Physical Extent: 5.5 cubic feet (7 boxes)
Preferred Citation: Charles E. Hancock Collection of Nevada Water Court Cases, 91-54. Special Collections, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Reno.
Repository: University of Nevada, Reno. Special Collections Department
Permanent Link: http://dewey.library.unr.edu/xtf/view?docId=ead/91-54-ead.xml

Biographical Note

Charles E. Hancock was a Nevadan who was interested in the Nevada water court cases which originated in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, as the United States of America (U.S.), plaintiff, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT) of Indians, plaintiff-intervenor, vs. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID), et al, defendants (civil no. R-2987-JBA), 1973.

Top

Scope and Content

This collection is divided into six series representing six court actions, all of which stemmed from one suit.

The United States of America in its own right and in its fiduciary capacity on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT or Tribe) filed a suit against the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID) et al. The "et al" included the Cities of Sparks and Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada, Sierra Pacific Power Company and 17,000 others. This suit, filed in 1973 as case # Civil R-2987-JBA before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, sought to quiet title to the water rights of all users to the Truckee River (also referred to as River). Those water rights had been decreed in 1944 in the case of United States vs Orr Water Ditch Company (also referred to as Orr Ditch).

In the 1973 court case, the plaintiff, later joined by the PLPT, claimed for itself minor reserved water rights for the Toiyabe National Forest and the Stillwater Wildlife Refuge. On behalf of the Tribe, the U.S. claimed that the creation of the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation in 1859 by implication reserved for the benefit of the Indians settled on that reservation, sufficient water from the Truckee River for the maintenance and preservation of the fishery in Pyramid Lake. Also reserved were sufficient flows in the Truckee River for the natural spawning of the fish long relied upon by the Indians as a staple of their diet.

In a judgement entered on December 12, 1977, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the complaint of the U.S., to the extent that a water right for the PLPT for fishery purposes was claimed. The court also dismissed, with prejudice, the complaint in intervention filed by the tribe. The primary basis for these dismissals was the Court's conclusion that the decree of Orr Ditch conclusively established and limited the rights of the U.S. and the Tribe and that the doctrine of res judicata precluded further litigation of this matter.

The case was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, cases 77-8418 (Series 2) and cases 78-115 and 78-1493, 1978-1982. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the holdings of the lower court, holding that res judicata barred the dispute between all parties except the Newlands Reclamation Project and the Tribe. In its decision of 1981 (amended 1982), the court ruled that the parties were not sufficiently adverse to one another in the Orr Ditch litigation to warrant the use of res judicata in this action, as the U.S. government had represented both the plaintiff and the defendant in Orr Ditch. The case was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on October 12, 1982 (cases 81-2245, 81-2276, and 82-38 - see Series 5). In its decision of 1983, the Supreme Court affirmed that part of the Ninth Circuit's holding barring the litigation between the Orr Ditch defendants, their successors in interest, and subsequent appropriators of the River; and the U.S. and the Tribe. The Court reversed the Circuit Court's holding that insufficient adversity existed between the Newlands Reclamation Project (represented by Orr Water Ditch Company) and the Tribe. In a unanimous decision the Court held that the Orr Ditch litigation barred the action between these parties as well.

The Supreme Court subsequently remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, which in turn remanded it back to the District Court, where it was again assigned the case number of Civil R-2987-JBA (see Series 1). Before that court could act upon the remand order, the Tribe submitted a motion to amend its original complaint. The amended complaint consisted of four claims:

- The Tribe asserted an implied reserved water right to the unappropriated waters of the River for fishery purposes.

- The Tribe sought to enjoin the State Engineer from infringing on the Tribe's right to the unappropriated waters.

- The Tribe contended that the Truckee Canal was located on the Tribe's reservation and constituted continuing trespass.

- The Tribe alleged that, contrary to Nevada law, several dams and obstructions on the Truckee were without fishways or fishladders and that a number of diversion ditches were without fishscreens.

The District Court denied leave to amend the complaint based on undue delay in presenting these new claims, prejudice to the opposing party because of the piecemeal nature of the litigation, and unrelatedness of the new claims to the original water right claims (Sept. 18, 1985).

Again, the Tribe appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court (case 86-1640), raising the issues of whether the District Court erred by denying the Tribe's motion for leave to amend its complaint, and whether the District Court erred by refusing to specify that its dismissal was without prejudice to the Tribe's claim to the unappropriated waters of the River.

This collection consists of court documents for these various court cases, and include motions, interrogatories, answers and objections, notices, memorandum, lists of witnesses and experts, and opinions of the litigants and the courts. There is also a small amount of correspondence which consists of cover letters accompanying documents filed in court, and letters announcing changes of addresses or withdrawals of attorneys.

Restrictions

Collection is open for research. Materials must be used on-site; advance notice suggested. Access to parts of this collection may be restricted under provisions of state or federal law.

Immediate Source of Acquisition

This collection of court cases involving northern Nevada water rights was donated to the Special Collections Department by Charles E. Hancock in October, 1991 by way of M. Richard Ganzel of the Political Science Department, University of Nevada, Reno.

Top

Arrangement

  • The Charles E. Hancock Collection of Nevada Water Court Cases is arranged into the following series:
  • Series 1: In the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Civil No. R-2987-JBA
  • Series 2: In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Court of Appeals No. 77-8418
  • Series 3: In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Nos. 78-1115 and 78-1493
  • Series 4: United States District Court, District of Nevada. In Equity No. A-3
  • Series 5: Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1982. Nos. 81-2245, 81-2276, and 82-38
  • Series 6: In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 86-1640

Top

Index Terms

This collection is indexed under the following headings in the online catalog of the University Libraries, University of Nevada, Reno. Researchers wishing to find related materials are encouraged to use the following index terms:

Organizations:

Subjects:

Geographic Locations:



Top

Administrative Information

Collection processed by Susan Searcy, January 1992. Finding aid prepared by Susan Searcy, January 1992. This finding aid was produced using the Archivists' Toolkit on July 12, 2016.

Top


Detailed Description of the Records

Series 1: In the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Civil No. R-2987-JBA United States of America, Plaintiff, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Plaintiff-Intervenor, vs Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, et al., Defendants, 1974-1986 3.0 cubic feet

The records of this series, which include documents of both the original and remanded case, consist of interrogatories, answers and objections, motions, notices, and opinions of the litigants and the court. They are arranged in chronological order. In several instances where a date could not be ascertained, documents were placed in what appeared to be an appropriate location.

The United States and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe filed this action in the U.S. District Court for Nevada in 1973 to quiet title to the water rights of all users to the Truckee River. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs' claims for water rights to the Truckee River were the same claims litigated earlier in the U.S. vs Orr Ditch Water Company, et al., Equity No. 3 (Series 4) and therefore barred; in his ruling of December 12, 1977 he dismissed the claim with prejudice. The case was subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed in part and reversed in part the holding of the District Court, finding that the parties were not sufficiently adverse to one another in Orr Ditch litigation to warrant the use of res judicata (1981). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1982 and affirmed in part and reversed in part the holding of the Court of Appeals (1983). The case was then remanded back to the District Court and assigned the original case number.

The Tribe moved to amend its original complaint before the District Court could hear the remanded case. The amended complaint consisted of four claims in which the tribe: a) asserted an implied reserved water right to the unappropriated waters of the Truckee River for fishery purposes; b) enjoined the State Engineer from infringing on the Tribe's right to the unappropriated waters; c) contended that the Truckee Canal was located on the Tribe's reservation and a continuing trespass; and d) alleged that contrary to Nevada law, several dams and obstructions on the Truckee were without fishways or fishladders and that a number of diversion ditches were without fishscreens.

In finally denying the motion to amend (and subsequently dismissing the suit), the court focused on four factors: undue delay in amending the suit after lengthy litigation (ten years), prejudice to the opposing party (if the amendment was granted, it would have changed the nature of the suit), futility of the amendment, and bad faith. The case was dismissed on September 18, 1985. Note: see Series 1/120, Box 4 for District Court's opinion summarizing the case.

On January 7, 1986 the Tribe filed notice of appeal to the Circuit Court.

box
folder
Contents
1/S1
1
Plaintiff-intervenor's answers and objections to interrogatories of TCID, November 19, 1974
1/S1
2
Fifth supplemental and revision answers to interrogatories of plaintiff and intervenor and amendment to list of witnesses and amendment to notice, November 1974; Exhibit schedule, November 1974; Order of March 22, 1976
1/S1
3
First set of interrogatories to plaintiff U.S., submitted by State of Nevada and others, March 10, 1975
box
folder
Contents
2/S1
4
Memorandum of points and authorities, March 31, 1975
2/S1
5
Proposed order; motion for continuance, March 31, 1975
2/S1
6
Answers to interrogatories submitted by plaintiffs to State of Nevada, April 1, 1975
2/S1
7
Answers to first interrogatories submitted by plaintiff-in-intervention to defendant County of Washoe, April 2, 1975
2/S1
8
Answers to first interrogatories submitted to plaintiff in intervention to defendant State of Nevada, April 2, 1975
2/S1
9
Order vacating trial date and order fixing hearing and conference date, April 3, 1975
2/S1
10
Answers to interrogatories of the U.S., April 3, 1975
2/S1
11
Answers to interrogatories of PLPT, April 7, 1975
2/S1
12
Answers to second interrogatories submitted by plaintiff-in-intervention to defendant County of Washoe, April 8, 1975
2/S1
13
Answers of the U.S. to defendant TCID's first set of interrogatories, April 9, 1975
2/S1
14
Plaintiff-intervenor's answers and objections to interrogatories submitted by defendant State of Nevada, April 10, 1975
2/S1
15
Plaintiff-intervenor's response to the State of Nevada's requests for admission, April 14, 1975
2/S1
16
Motion of the PLPT for an order to compel discovery and an order to shorten time for hearing on the motion, April 16, 1975; Order compelling discovery and awarding expenses, 1975
2/S1
17
Answers to State of Nevada's first set of interrogatories, April 17, 1975
2/S1
18
Response of the U.S. to requests for admission of the State of Nevada, April 17, 1975
2/S1
19
Request of admissions, April 18, 1975
2/S1
20
Memorandum of points and authorities of defendant State of Nevada, in opposition to motion of the PLPT for an order to compel discovery, April 21, 1975
2/S1
21
Motion to determine sufficiency of response to requests for admission, April 21, 1975
2/S1
22
Local rule 17, certificate of attempt to resolve discovery dispute, April 21, 1975
box
folder
Contents
3/S1
23
Defendant State of Nevada's motion for an order compelling plaintiff-intervenor PLPT to answer interrogatories, April 21, 1975
3/S1
24
Order compelling discovery and awarding expenses, 1975
3/S1
25
Plaintiff-intervenor's answers and responses to the interrogatories and requests for admissions of the Sierra Pacific Power Company, April 21, 1975
3/S1
26
Plaintiff-intervenor's answers and objections to the interrogatories of the City of Reno, April 21, 1975
3/S1
27
Order [compelling response to interrogatories], April 21, 1975; Amended order, April 29, 1975; Order granting motion to dismiss, April 29, 1975; Rule 54B certificate; Judgement of Dismissal, April 29, 1975
3/S1
28
First supplemental answers to interrogatories of PLPT, May 5, 1975
3/S1
29
Second set of interrogatories to plaintiff U.S. (submitted by City of Reno), May 8, 1975, Second set of interrogatories to intervenor PLPT (by City of Reno), May 8, 1975
3/S1
30
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, May 1975
3/S1
31
First supplemental answers to interrogatories of the U.S., May 1975
3/S1
32
Order denying motion to shorten time, May 9, 1975, Order denying motion to vacate June 2, 1975 hearing of motions, May 28, 1975
3/S1
33
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories submitted to numerous defendants and supplemental answer concerning lay witnesses given in accordance with the court's order of June 2, 1975, June 4, 1975, Notice of change of address to plaintiff-intervenor's attorney, June 4, 1975
3/S1
34
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by Miss Nada Novakovich, June 4, 1975
3/S1
35
First supplemental answers to interrogatories to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, June 4, 1975
3/S1
36
Answer to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by the firm of Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, June 4, 1975
3/S1
37
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by Frank R. Petersen, June 6, 1975
3/S1
38
List of lay witnesses (submitted by City of Reno), June 6, 1975
3/S1
39
Third set of interrogatories to plaintiff-intervenor PLPT (submitted by City of Reno), June 6, 1975
3/S1
40
Third set of interrogatories to plaintiff-intervenor U.S. (submitted by City of Reno), June 6, 1975
3/S1
41
Amended order, June 7, 1975. Order on various discovery motions, June 10, 1975, Order approving stipulation concerning depositions of expert witnesses, June 6, 1975
3/S1
42
Response of State of Nevada to plaintiff-intervenor's motion to strike or in the alternative for an early determination of a special legal question, June 9, 1975
3/S1
43
Answers by defendants to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, June 9, 1975
3/S1
44
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants by plaintiff-intervenor, June 12, 1975
3/S1
45
State of Nevada's memorandum of points and authorities in support of its objections to interrogatories propounded to numerous defendants by plaintiff-intervenor, June 12, 1975
3/S1
46
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, June 13, 1975
3/S1
47
Sierra Pacific power Company's second set of interrogatories to plaintiff, June 16, 1975
3/S1
48
List of expert and lay witnesses (submitted by County of Washoe), June 16, 1975
3/S1
49
Defendant State of Nevada's request to plaintiff-intervenor to produce and permit copying of documents, June 16, 1975
3/S1
50
State of Nevada's supplemental answers to interrogatories of plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor, June 16, 1975
3/S1
51
Second set of interrogatories to intervenor PLPT (submitted by State of Nevada), June 16, 1975
3/S1
52
Second set of interrogatories to plaintiff U.S. (submitted by State of Nevada), June 16, 1975
3/S1
53
[List of potential expert witnesses for defendants], June 16, 1975
3/S1
54
Sierra Pacific Power Company's answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, June 19, 1975, Sierra Pacific Power Company's answers to plaintiff-intervenor's second set of interrogatories to numerous defendants, June 17, 1975
3/S1
55
Answers to plaintiff-intervenors supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by the Firm Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, June 18, 1975, Answers to plaintiff-intervenors interrogatories to numerous defendants, July 2, 1975
3/S1
56
Memorandum decision and order denying motion of plaintiff-defendant to contact the Federal Power Commission, July 18, 1975, Notices of taking depositions, June 23, 1975
3/S1
57
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories and supplemental interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by Goldwater Hill Mortimer Sourwine and Pinkerton, June 26, 1975
3/S1
58
State of Nevada's memorandum of points and authorities in support of its objections to interrogatories propounded to numerous defendants by plaintiff-intervenor, July 3, 1975
3/S1
59
Answers by defendants to plaintiff-intervenor's supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants, July 25, 1975
3/S1
60
Response to plaintiff-intervenor's memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for reconsideration, [1975] Memorandum decision and order denying motion, July 26, 1975
3/S1
61
Defendant County of Washoe's answers to plaintiff-intervenor's supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants, August 5, 1975
3/S1
62
Amended list of expert and lay witnesses (submitted by Washoe County), August 6, 1975 Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by the firm of Streeter, Sala & McAuliffe September 3, 1975
3/S1
63
Amended order of April 21, 1975, as amended April 29 and June 7, 1975 August 7, 1975 Answers and objections of City of Reno to plaintiff-intervenor's supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants and revisions and supplementary answers to prior interrogatories of said Tribe and/or U.S.A. August 15, 1975.
3/S1
64
Memorandum decision and order denying plaintiff-intervenor's motion for reconsideration or in the alternative for modification of the court's memorandum decision and order denying motion to contact the Federal Power Commission August 19, 1975
3/S1
65
Memorandum and order on motion for protective order by numerous defendants and order compelling answers, August 19, 1975 City of Reno answer to complaint in intervention, September 3, 1975 Affidavit of mailing, September 3, 1975
3/S1
66
Third supplemental and revision answers to interrogatories to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, September 3, 1975 Proposed pre-trial order, September 3, 1975
3/S1
67
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants, September 3, 1975
3/S1
68
Supplemental answer to second interrogatories of plaintiff-intervenor to defendant Washoe County, September 3, 1975 State of Nevada's supplemental answers to interrogatories to plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor September 5, 1975
3/S1
69
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories dated May 2, 1975 to numerous defendants represented by Guild, Hagen & Clark, Ltd. September 5, 1975
3/S1
70
Alphabetical letter designation in re exhibits, September 5, 1975 Stipulation, September 8, 1975 List of expert and lay witnesses for numerous defendants, September 8, 1975
3/S1
71
Amended answers by City of Reno, Supplemental answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, September 18, 1975
3/S1
72
Supplemental answers to plaintiff-intervenor's supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants, September 18, 1975 Amended answer, September 23, 1975 Declaration of mailing, September 24, 1975 Order, September 24, 1975 Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants, September 8, 1975
3/S1
73
Supplemental answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by the firm Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, September 30, 1975; supplemental answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by Jack I. McAuliffe, September 30, 1975
3/S1
74
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories and supplementary interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by the firm Woodburn, Wedge, Blakey, Folsom and Hug, October 1, 1975
3/S1
75
Supplementary answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories, October 1, 1975
3/S1
76
Supplementary answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants, October 2, 1925 Amended answers (8), October 3, 1975
3/S1
77
Notice, October 8, 1975 Proposed exhibit, October 17, 1975 Exhibits and documents to be used at the bifurcated trial on November 17, 1975, October 17, 1975 Exhibit schedule, October 16, 1975
3/S1
78
Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by Eli Grubic, September 28, 1975 Answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants September 28, 1975
3/S1
79
Order allowing plaintiff-intervenor to include answers to interrogatories as exhibits, October 20, 1975 Motion of County of Washoe to file documents and exhibits after October 17, 1975; also affidavit in support of, October 21, 1975, Order granting leave for County of Washoe to file documents and exhibits after October 17, 1975, October 28, 1975 Declaration of mailing, Proposed order, October 22, 1975
3/S1
80
Supplementary answers to plaintiff-intervenor's interrogatories to numerous defendants and answers, October 30, 1975 Supplementary exhibits and documents to be used at the bifurcated trial on November 17, 1975, October 30, 1975
3/S1
81
Notice and order, November 3, 1975 Notice of State of Nevada's use of "summaries," November 6, 1975 Orders allowing plaintiff-in-intervention to amend its schedule of exhibits, November 6, 1975
3/S1
82
Fourth supplemental and revision answers to interrogatories of plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor and list of witnesses, November 14, 1975 Supplementary list of witnesses submitted by the County of Washoe, November 6, 1975 Pre-trial brief on the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel, November 10, 1975
3/S1
83
Pre-trial brief by City of Reno, November 8, 1975
3/S1
84
State of Nevada's pre-trial brief on res judicata, November 10, 1975 State of Nevada's motion to amend and supplement its list of documents and exhibits to permit additional lodging, November 11, 1975
3/S1
85
Supplemental answers to plaintiff-intervenor's supplemental interrogatories to numerous defendants represented by the firm Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, December 3, 1975 Notices and orders vacating and resetting bifurcated trial (2) December 12, 1975, January 16, 1976
3/S1
86
Corrections to deposition of Russell W. McDonald, March 12, 1976. Notice of rebuttal documents lodged, March 15, 1976 Motion of the U.S. and PLPT to amend the court's order of February 5, 1975 and to reopen the record, October 12, 1977
box
folder
Contents
4/S1
87
Correspondence to the court, January 1977
4/S1
88
Stipulation between the U.S. and Sierra Pacific Co. for release of certain information, February 1977 Motion for extension of time, April 1977 Affidavit of mailing
4/S1
89
Defendant Washoe County's responsive memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor's motion to strike certain affirmative defenses, or, in the alternative, for an early determination of special legal questions, April 1977
4/S1
90
Proposed orders (2), 1977 Motion for enlargement of time and responsive memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to plaintiff's motion to strike certain affirmative defenses; also supplemental memorandum, May 1977
4/S1
91
Order granting extension of time, fixing briefing schedules and time for closing arguments, May 1977
4/S1
92
Order granting leave to amend, June 1977 Points and authorities in opposition to strike or alternative early determination of special legal question, April 1977
4/S1
93
Washoe County opening post-trial brief, July 19, 1977
4/S1
94
Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree, September 1977
4/S1
95
Separate post-trial brief of the PLPT, September 1977
4/S1
96-98
Post-trial brief of the U.S. and PLPT and appendices volumes I-III, September 1977
4/S1
99
Supplemental memorandum of points and authorities of the U.S. and PLPT concerning res judicata, October 1977
4/S1
100
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion of the USA and PLPT to amend the court's February 5, 1975 order and to reopen the record, October 5, 1977 Corrected affidavit of mailing, July 22, 1977
4/S1
101
Errata to the post-trial brief of the U.S. and PLPT, October 12, 1977 Errata to the post-trial brief of the PLPT, October 12, 1977
4/S1
102
Designation of record on appeal, March 1978, Order on all pending post-trial motions, November 1977 PLPT reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum, November 1977
4/S1
103
Memorandum of U.S. joining the supplemental memorandum of points and authorities filed by the PLPT, November 1977 Order granting enlargement of time, November 1977, State of Nevada's notice to District Court clerk, April 1978
4/S1
104
Memorandum decision, December 1977
4/S1
105
Supplemental designation of record on appeal, December 1978 Order (permitting withdrawal of counsel for some of defendants), January 1978 New appeals docketing information, December 1977 Notice of appeal, January 1978
4/S1
106
Designation of record on appeal, February 1978
4/S1
107
Information needed in appeal of decision in R-2987-JBA decided December 12, 1978, March 1978
4/S1
108
Points and authorities in response to plaintiff-intervenor's objection to Sierra Pacific Power Company's supplemental designation of record on appeal and motion to limit such designation to the evidentiary record in the District Court, December 1978
4/S1
109
Motion and stipulation for attorney for PLPT to withdraw, December 1979
4/S1
110
Motion to enlarge time to respond to motion by plaintiff-intervenor, January 1984
4/S1
111
Protective motion for filing response to Tribe's motion to amend (3), January 1984 Motion to enlarge time for response to motion (2), January 1984
4/S1
112
Memorandum in support of motion for leave to file first amended complaint in intervention (2), January 1984 First amended complaint in intervention, January 1984
4/S1
113
Plaintiff's opposition to plaintiff-intervenor's motion for leave to file first amended complaint in intervention, February 1984
4/S1
114
PLPT's statement of supplemental authorities in support of motion for leave to file amended complaint, February 1984 Motion of PLPT to life stay order, February 1984
4/S1
115
Change of address, 1984 Order (to lift stay), March 1984 Opposition to plaintiff-intervenor's motion for leave to file; first amended complaint in intervention, March 1984 Motion for leave to withdraw as counsel, August 1984
4/S1
116
Defendant Washoe County's opposition to plaintiff-intervenor's motion for leave to file first amended complaint, April 1984 Exhibit designations, November 1982 Court correspondence re corrections to brief of petitioner, December1982
4/S1
117
Memorandum of TCID in opposition to Tribe's motion for leave to file first amended complaint in intervention, April 1984 Notice of change of address of attorneys for TCID, April 1984
4/S1
118
Nevada's opposition to plaintiff-intervenor's motion for leave to file first amended complaint in intervention, April 1984
4/S1
119
Sierra Pacific Power Company's points and authorities in opposition to motion to leave to file first amended complaint in intervention, April 1984
4/S1
120
PLPT's submittal of supplemental authorities in support of motion for leave to file amended complaint, April 1985 Sierra Pacific Power Company's protective motion for filing response to Tribe's motion to amend, April 1985
4/S1
121
Opinion, September 1985 Order dismissing the U.S.'s and the Tribe's claims for implied reserved water rights to the Truckee River, September 1985
4/S1
122
Nevada's opposition to the Tribe's motion to alter or amend judgment, October 1985 Sierra Pacific Power Company's points and authorities in opposition to PLPT's motion to alter or amend judgment, October 1985 Order denying PLPT's motion to amend judgment, November 1985
4/S1
123
Notice of appeal, January 1986
4/S1
124
Motion for voluntary dismissal, March 1986 Substitution of attorneys, January 1986 Response to civil appeals docketing statement filed by PLPT, March 1986
4/S1
125
Appellee's notice regarding transcript designation, March 1986

Series 2: In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 77-8418 United States of America, Petitioner, vs Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, et al., Respondents, 1977-1978 (6 folders.)

The U.S. District Court case Civil No. R-2987-JBA was appealed to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1978, becoming case No. 77-8418. Initially the Petitioner was the United States of America; subsequently the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe's separate appeal was consolidated with 77-8418 and the case was re-numbered as 78-1115 and 78-1493 (see Series 3). In the District Court judgment of 1977 the claims of the plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor had been dismissed with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the holdings of the lower court, holding that res judicata barred the dispute between all parties except the Newlands Reclamation Project and the Tribe. In its 1981 decision (amended in 1982) the Appeals Court found that these parties were not sufficiently adverse to one another in the Orr Ditch litigation to warrant the use of res judicata in this action, as the U.S. government had represented both the plaintiff and the defendant in Orr Ditch. The case was then appealed to the United Supreme Court, where it was granted certiorari on October 12, 1982.

This case again came to the Circuit Court's attention in 1986, after it had passed through the Supreme Court and through the District Court for a second time. At that time the case number became 86-1640.

The files in this series are arranged chronologically. Files for this Circuit Court appeal are continued in Series 3.

The files in this series are arranged chronologically.

box
folder
Contents
5/S2
1
TCID (and class defendants) answer to U.S.'s application for leave to take interlocutory appeal, December 1977
5/S2
2
Answer to plaintiff's application for leave to take interlocutory appeal, December 1977
5/S2
3
Statement of PLPT in response to the U.S.'s application for leave to take interlocutory appeal and answers of the City of Reno, State of Nevada, and TCID, January 1978
5/S2
4
Motion for extension of time to transmit the record, March 1978
5/S2
5
Appellant's motion for extension of time to file reply briefs, March 1978
5/S2
6
Memorandum in support of motion for extension of time to transmit the record (2), May and July, 1978

Series 3: In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Nos. 78-1115 and 78-1493 United States of America, Plaintiffs, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Plaintiff-Intervenor, vs Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, Defendants-Appellees, 1977-1981; 1983 1.0 cubic feet

For information on this series see the Scope and Content note for Series Two.

box
folder
Contents
5/S3
1
Application for leave to take interlocutory appeal, December 1977
5/S3
2
Letter to Chief Judge Browning from Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse re counsel Sachse, October 1978 Letter from City Attorney John Schroeder re withdrawal of City from TCID case, January 1978
5/S3
3
Order (granting permission to appeal), March 7, 1978
5/S3
4
Sierra Pacific Power Company's reply points and authorities in support of motion to strike appendix and in opposition to motion for leave to file appendix, September 21, 1978
5/S3
5
Brief of amicus curiae Sierra Club, October 20, 1978
5/S3
6
Brief for the U.S., October 1978
5/S3
7
Motions for leave to file principal briefs that exceed 70 pgs, October 23, 1978
5/S3
8
Brief of appellant PLPT, October 23, 1978
5/S3
9
Motion for order of clarification of time to file appellee's briefs, November 15, 1978
5/S3
10
Concurring motion for order of clarification of time to file appellee's briefs, November 22, 1978
5/S3
11
Order re appellee's brief, November 24, 1978
5/S3
12
Motion to strike appendix Motion for leave to file appendix, November 27, 1978
5/S3
13
Motions for leave to file appendix - oppositions, December 1, 1978
5/S3
14
Brief of appellant PLPT, December 4, 1978
5/S3
15
PLPT's memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for leave to file appendix; December 14, 1978; and in opposition to strike appendix, February 16, 1979
5/S3
16
Motion for extension of time to file appellee, Sierra Pacific Power Company's brief, December 31, 1978
5/S3
17
Brief of amici curiae states of Idaho, Arizona, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, [1978]
5/S3
18
Appellee's appendix, [1978]
5/S3
19
Motions for extension of time...; motion for an order limiting the service list for the record of appeal, January 19, 1979
5/S3
20
Miscellaneous documents and correspondence, February 12, 1979
5/S3
21
Re motion of Mountain State Legal Foundation for leave to file an amicus curiae, February 12, 1979
5/S3
22
Brief of Robert Gaynor Berry and other appellees, February 27, 1979
5/S3
23
Brief of appellee State of Nevada, February 28, 1979
5/S3
24
Brief of appellee Sister M. Margaret McCarran, February 28, 1979
5/S3
25
Brief of numerous individual appellees, February 1979
5/S3
26
Brief of appellee Washoe County, Nevada, March 1, 1979
5/S3
27
Brief of appellee Sierra Pacific Power Company, March 1, 1979
5/S3
28
Brief of appellee City of Reno, March 1, 1979
5/S3
29
Brief of appellee Albert A. Alcorn, et al, [March 1,] 1979
5/S3
30
Brief of appellee City of Sparks, March 1, 1979
5/S3
31
Brief of appellee TCID, March 1, 1979
5/S3
32
Reply brief of the U.S., May 1979
5/S3
33
Appellants' motion for extension of time to file reply brief, May 15, 1979 Order (amendment to opinion), January 5, 1982 Statement of additional citations of relevant decisions, April 7, 1980 Memo of opposition to appellants' motion for extension of time to file reply brief, March 23, 1979
5/S3
34
Reply brief of appellant PLPT, May 29, 1979
5/S3
35
Motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae and brief for amicus curiae of Association of American Indian Affairs, Inc, [1979]
box
folder
Contents
6/S3
36
Motion of Mountain States Legal Foundation for leave to file brief as amicus curiae, [1979]
6/S3
37
Motion and stipulation (and order) for attorney for PLPT to withdraw, December 19, 1979 Appellees' division of oral argument on common legal issues, April 7, 1980 Address changes, 1979-1980 Motion for additional time for oral argument, March 26, 1980
6/S3
38
Notices of cases set for hearing, April 1980
6/S3
39
PLPT's petition for rehearing and modification, June 29, 1981
6/S3
40
PLPT's appendix to petition for rehearing and modification, [1981]
6/S3
41
Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing and modification that exceeds page limitation and appendix to petition for rehearing and modification, June 28, 1981
6/S3
42
Appellee State of Nevada's petition for rehearing, June 29, 1981
6/S3
43
TCID's petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing in banc, June 29, 1981
6/S3
44
Order modifying opinion, July 1981
6/S3
45
Case summary from Key West Publishing, 1981
6/S3
46
Order remanding case to U.S. District Court for District of Nevada, 1983

Series 4: United States District Court, District of Nevada In Equity No. A-3 United States of America, Plaintiff, vs Orr Water Ditch Company, et al., Defendants, 1979-1980 (10 folders.)

In 1913, the United States, on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, brought an action against the Orr Ditch Water Company and all other users of the Truckee River to quiet title to the water rights of the Truckee River. The parties in the case eventually reached an agreement as to how to divide the available water rights. The District Court entered a consent decree based on this agreement in 1944. This decree, commonly known as Orr Ditch, has formed the basis for the division of available water in the Truckee and Carson Rivers since that date.

When the United States and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe brought suit against the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District et al in 1974, the plaintiffs raised the issue of whether the 1944 Orr Ditch decree was erroneous and in error. In the case of In Equity A-3, the trial court found that the final decree entered in the case of United States vs Orr Water Ditch Company to have been a final decree on the merits, by a court of competent jurisdiction with jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; the court therefore upheld the Orr decision.

The files in this series are arranged chronologically.

box
folder
Contents
6/S4
1
Request for service of pleadings, May 1979
6/S4
2
Sierra Pacific Power Company's answer to U.S.'s petition for change in place and purpose of use, June 1979
6/S4
3
Request for service of pleadings, order and papers, May 1979 TCID'[s answer in opposition to petition for change in place and purpose of use, June 1979
6/S4
4
Sierra Pacific Power Company's requests for admission and interrogatories, November 1979
6/S4
5
Sierra Pacific Power Company's request for production of documents (2), November 1979
6/S4
6
Sierra Pacific Power Company's requests for admissions and interrogatories, November 1979
6/S4
7
Stipulation re U.S. petition for change in place and purpose of use, April 1980
6/S4
8
Sierra Pacific Power Company's response to the U.S.'s requests for admissions and second set of interrogatories, June 1980
6/S4
9
Sierra Pacific's response to the U.S.'s request for production of documents, June 1980
6/S4
10
Sierra Pacific's response to the U.S.'s first set of interrogatories

Series 5: Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1982 Nos. 81-2245, 81-2276, and 82-38 State of Nevada, Petitioner, vs United States of America, et al., Respondents; and Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, Petitioner, vs United States of America and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Respondents; and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Cross-Petitioner, vs Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, et al., Cross-Respondents, 1982-1983 0.5 cubic feet

The documents in this series include briefs, statements, petitions, and an appendix. Undated documents date from approximately 1982-1983.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari (permission to present a case) to what was originally the District Court of Nevada case Civil R-2987-JBA on October 12, 1982. The Supreme Court affirmed that part of the Ninth Circuit's holding barring the litigation between the Orr Ditch Company defendants, their successors in interest, and subsequent appropriators of the Truckee River; and the United States and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. The Court, however, reversed the Circuit Court's holding that insufficient adversity existed between the Newlands Reclamation Project and the Tribe. The Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the Orr Ditch litigation barred the action between these parties as well. The case was then remanded back to the lower courts.

Arranged chronologically. However, many documents were undated and they have either been placed in association with a similar file, or arranged at the end of the series.

box
folder
Contents
6/S5
1
Brief of petitioner, October term, 1981
6/S5
2
Statement of amicus curiae State of Arizona in support of...; and Brief of amici curiae states in support of..., October term, 1981
6/S5
3
Petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and appendix to petition, circa March 1982
6/S5
4
Petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, June 9, 1982
6/S5
5
Appendix to petition for writ of certiorari, [June 1982]
6/S5
6
Cross petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, October term, 1982
6/S5
7
Brief in opposition to cross-petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth District, October term, 1982
6/S5
8
Statement of respondent State of Nevada, [June 1982]
6/S5
9
Various petitions for postponement, July to August 1982
6/S5
10
Cross petitioners' supply brief Reply brief of TCID. Brief in opposition to cross-petition for writ of certiorari to U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, August 24, 1982
6/S5
11
State of Nevada's brief in opposition, August 24, 1982
6/S5
12
Brief for U.S. in opposition, August 1982
6/S5
13
Brief for respondent PLPT in opposition, August 1982
6/S5
14
Reply brief of TCID, September 10, 1982
6/S5
15
Reply brief, September 1982
6/S5
16
Brief of petitioner TCID
6/S5
17
Cross-petitioners' reply brief, September 1982
6/S5
18
Motion for divided argument, October 1982
6/S5
19
Sierra Pacific Power Company's designation of additional parts of the record to be included in the joint appendix, November 1982
6/S5
20
Letter of designation of petitioners State of Nevada and TCID to be included in joint appendix, November 1982
6/S5
21
Brief of amicus curiae Yakima Valley Canal Co. and Union Gap Irrigation District in support of petitioners TCID and State of Nevada, December 15, 1982
6/S5
22
Briefs of amici curiae of various states, December 1982
6/S5
23
Briefs of amici curiae Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth
6/S5
24
Brief of cross petitioner PLPT
6/S5
25
Miscellaneous documents and correspondence, 1982-1983
6/S5
26
Certificate of service, January 1983
6/S5
27
Request for extension of time, January 1983
6/S5
28
Motion for divided argument, January 1983
6/S5
29
Re printing of joint appendix, January 1983
6/S5
30
Joint appendix, February 1983
6/S5
31
Brief of respondent Sierra Pacific Power Company, February 25, 1983
6/S5
32
Request for extension of time, February 1983
6/S5
33
Brief of the Hoopa Tribe, Makah Tribe and Squamish Indian Tribe as amicus curiae in support of PLPT, February 1983
6/S5
34
Brief of cross-respondent TCID, February 11, 1983
6/S5
35
Brief of respondent State of Nevada, February 25, 1983
6/S5
36
Brief of PLPT as respondents, February 1983
6/S5
37
Brief of respondents Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County, February 25, 1983
6/S5
38
Brief for respondent Sierra Pacific Power Company in opposition, March 1, 1983
6/S5
39
Brief of the U.S., March 1983
6/S5
40
Reply brief, April 1983
6/S5
41
Reply brief of cross petitioner PLPT, April 1983
6/S5
42
Motion for leave to file reply to joint post-argument memorandum and reply to joint post-argument memorandum for the PLPT, May 1983
6/S5
43
Motion for leave to file post-argument memorandum and post-argument memorandum for the U.S., May 1983
6/S5
44
Joint conditional motion for leave to file post-argument memorandum for petitioners 82-2245 and 81-2276, May 1983
6/S5
45
Response of PLPT to motion of U.S. for leave to file post-argument memorandum, May 1983
6/S5
46
Petition for rehearing of the PLPT, July 1983

Series 6: In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 86-1640 United States of America, Plaintiff, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, Plaintiff-Intervenor/Appellant, vs Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, et al., Defendants/Appellees, 1986 (1 folder.)

In this portion of the history of the suit, the issues raised were whether the District Court erred by denying the Tribe's motion for leave to amend its complaint, and whether the District Court erred by refusing to specify that its dismissal was without prejudice to the Tribe's claim to the unappropriated waters of the Truckee River.

box
folder
Contents
6/S6
1
Civil appeals docketing statement, February 1986