Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />'0787 <br /> <br />1. Would reserved rights be icnune 8S 8 matter of <br />sovereign immunity from state administration <br />operating under a perI:lit systeM. I~*omin~ <br />Adjudicatio~; NcCarran, ~~~ga; tlort, ern he~enne. <br />, etc. v. Ads1t, 668 F.2d (9th C1r.. 19B ); <br />United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court, <br />Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100. <br /> <br />I II. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />A. Litigation Trends <br />1. Increased use of extensive discovery. <br />2. Exclusion of small water users. <br /> <br />3. Federal budget liniting federal response to <br />court orders for quantification. <br /> <br />4. Increased use of pre-trial motions. <br /> <br />S. Trend towards awarding reserved rights to the <br />governnent in name only. <br /> <br />24-6 <br />