WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00329~ by some of the parties.. I believe that an analogy, uSe- ful in considering the present Cll"Se, may be drawn from that doctrine as it operates in cases which are not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The doctrine of "law of the case" differs from res judicata because the latter compels adherence to a prior decision while the former merely directs the Court's discretion. It is a matter of good practice, not a limitation on the Court's power. See Southern Ry. u. Clift. 260 U.S. 316, 319 (1922); Messenger u. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912). Because such an inquiry in- volves the Court's sound judgment, any justifiable reli- ance interests ought to be weighed in the balance. See 18 Moore's Federal Practice ~'ll 0.404[2], 0.404[3], at 431-35 (2d ed. 1980). On the other hand, a prior hold- ing may be avoided if the Court is convinced that such a holding was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. See White u. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 43l-32 (5th Gir. 1967). In such cases, "U!ustice is bet- ter than consistency." Seagraues u. Wallace, 69 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 293 U.S. 569 (1934). My inquiry will be to determine, as best 88 possible, the manner in which the Supreme Court should exer- cise its sound discretion. Every party has presented relevant arguments that touch upon this question. The United States and all the Tribes offer a number of reasons for opening the question of water rights for the omitted lands. The United States argues that the complexity of the prior litigation caused the mistake leading to the exclusion of the omitted lands from its prior claims.'o The United States also notes that even the State Parties admit that the vast majority of the omitted lands within the United States claims are practicably irriga- ble. Jl Some of the Tribes note that their absence as actual parties in the prior proceedings is a factor to be considered, because they did not hSve" an opportunity to protect their interests. II In addition, all of the Tribes have, at different times and in varying degrees of vigor, argued that the United States' earlier repre- sentation of their interests was inadequate because of a conflict of interest and this circumstance alone viti- ates the State Parties' defense of preclusion. 11 Other reasons of less persuasive force have also been offered.'. 9. See United States' Opening Post-Trial Brief 188 n.12 (May 1981); Stata Parties' Memorandum on Res Judicata 1 (Mar. 1981). Cf. Nevada Reply Brier 9 (June 1981). 10. Unitad States' Pre-Trial Brief 16 n.21 (Aug. 1980). 11. Jd. at 13 " nn. 15 " 16; United StateB' Opening POIt- Trial Brief 23 (May 1981); United Statea' CIOIing Peat-TriaJ Brief 12-13 (June 1981). See S. P. Exh. 110, at Table 1 (Bbowing 17,314 gross irrigable acres of omitted landa compared to 24,415 of aame represented as being claimed by United Statea). See alto Four Tribes' Pre-Trial Brief 14-15 (Aug. 1980). 12. See Four Tribes' Pre-Trial Brief 15 (Aug. 1980). 13. Four Tribes' Pre-Trial Brief 16-20 (Aug. 1980); Trial Brief at Quechan Tribe 33-42 (Aug. 1980). 14. For example, the Four Tribes have claimed that tbe 1964 Decree .bould be reopened because the quantification Bt.andard for the Indiana' water righla was adopted by the Court after the evidence in the caae..... developed. Four Tribes' Pre-Trial Brief 10-11 (Aug. 1980); Four Tribea' Opening Post.TriaI Brief 109 (May 1981). Althou,b the Bt.andard mq not have been approved by the Court until after the evidence was pre- pared, the prior Master deaired that the United Statea preaent evida.... meeting that standard, end the United Statea Ob numeroua occaaioDa represented that it was proNnting BUch evidence. E.,. Pr. Tr. lUll!. Even if the law waa unsettled at the time of trial, the Btandud. which waa later adopted by the Meater and the Court, ..... the ..... Btandard which tbe Master required the United StateB to ... in ita trial proNnta. tion. Thia fact thua adda little to the Tribes' <:Me except inIofar as the United States may heve conacioU81y departed from tbB Bt.andard while pr....in' ila claima. That conoideration would, however, bear more on the question of the adequacy of the United Stata.' repreaentation at the In. 36 37