United States Tenth Circuit

In an action by an Indian tribe seeking a declaration that the Secretary of the Interior's implementation of the 1954 Ute Partition and Termination Act did not provide for an equitable and practicable division and distribution of water rights between "mixed-blood" and "full-blood" members of the tribe, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff could not rely on the continuing wrong doctrine to save its action from being untimely.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/19/2009
• Published 10/19/2009

Judges

• BRISCOE, Circuit Judge., Before HENRY, Chief Circuit Judge, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Shawn E. Draney, (Max D. Wheeler, Camille N. Johnson, and Judith D. Wolferts with him on the briefs), of Snow, Christensen & Martineau, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Katherine J. Barton, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resource Division, Washington, D.C. (John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General;  John K. Mangum, Assistant United States Attorney, Salt Lake, UT;  Elizabeth A. Peterson, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.;   Jason Hartz, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., of counsel, with her on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee Secretary of the Interior., Tod J. Smith of Whiteing & Smith, Boulder, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Ute Indian Tribe.