This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a dispute over water rights in the Gallinas River, part of the Roswell Artesian Basin. The City of Las Vegas claims a pueblo water right with a priority date of 1835, based on its status as a successor to a Spanish or Mexican town established for colonization. The State of New Mexico disputes this claim, arguing that prior adjudications, including the 1922 Gallinas Decree, preclude the city's assertion of such rights (paras 1-6, 8-9).
Procedural History
- Gallinas Decree, 1922: The district court adjudicated water rights in the Gallinas River, granting the Board of Trustees of the Town of Las Vegas a water right with a 1909 priority date (paras 11-12).
- Cartwright v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 1958 (Cartwright I): The New Mexico Supreme Court recognized the pueblo water rights doctrine and held that the City of Las Vegas had a water right with an 1835 priority date (paras 15-20).
- Cartwright v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 1961 (Cartwright II): The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the 1958 decision, finding it res judicata between the parties (para 23).
- State of New Mexico v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 1954 (Erickson): The district court dismissed the state's attempt to enforce the Hope Decree against the Public Service Company, which had claimed a pueblo water right (paras 14, 33-34).
- Writ of Assistance Case, 1960: A federal court denied the state's request to enforce the Hope Decree, citing Cartwright I as binding precedent (paras 24, 33-34).
Parties' Submissions
- City of Las Vegas: Argued that it holds a pueblo water right with an 1835 priority date, as recognized in Cartwright I, and that the doctrines of stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel preclude the state's challenge. The city also contended that the Gallinas Decree does not bar its claim (paras 2-6, 29-30, 49).
- State of New Mexico: Asserted that the pueblo water rights doctrine is historically inaccurate and inconsistent with New Mexico's prior appropriation doctrine. The state also argued that the Gallinas Decree and other prior adjudications preclude the city's claim (paras 5, 30-31, 49).
Legal Issues
- Does the doctrine of stare decisis require the district court to apply the pueblo water rights doctrine as recognized in Cartwright I?
- Can the district court receive evidence challenging the historical accuracy of the pueblo water rights doctrine?
- Does the Gallinas Decree preclude the City of Las Vegas from asserting a pueblo water right in the present case?
Disposition
- The district court's denial of both motions for partial summary judgment was affirmed (para 50).
- The court held that neither the city nor the state was entitled to summary judgment at this stage (para 50).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Alarid and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Stare Decisis and Cartwright I: The court held that Cartwright I is binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. It recognized the pueblo water rights doctrine and established that successors to colonization grants are entitled to such rights. However, unresolved factual issues remain regarding the existence, parameters, and ownership of the city's claimed right, precluding summary judgment (paras 35-41).
Historical Accuracy of the Pueblo Water Rights Doctrine: The court allowed the district court to receive evidence on the historical accuracy of the pueblo water rights doctrine. This would enable the New Mexico Supreme Court to reconsider Cartwright I if it chooses to do so. The court emphasized that Alexander v. Delgado does not preclude the development of a record for potential reconsideration of precedent (paras 42-48).
Gallinas Decree: The court rejected the state's argument that the Gallinas Decree precludes the city's claim. It reasoned that Cartwright I, as the later judgment, controls under the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, even if the Gallinas Decree is inconsistent with it (para 49).
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: The court found that the city's reliance on Erickson and the writ of assistance case was misplaced, as those cases were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and did not resolve the merits of the pueblo water rights claim (paras 30-34).
The court concluded that the district court's denial of summary judgment was appropriate, as material factual and legal issues remain unresolved (para 50).