Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

| Litigants = Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.

| ArgueDate = January 31

| ArgueYear = 1938

| DecideDate = April 25

| DecideYear = 1938

| FullName = Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.

| USVol = 304

| USPage = 92

| ParallelCitations = 58 S. Ct. 803; 82 L. Ed. 1202

| Prior = 101 Colo. 73, 70 P.2d 849 (1937)

| Holding = Federal common law applies to resolve water rights governed by an interstate compact.

| Majority = Brandeis

| JoinMajority = Hughes, McReynolds, Butler, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed

| NotParticipating = Cardozo

}}

Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938), is a US Supreme Court case that said a "general common law" or "general federal common law" no longer exists in the American legal system and is unconstitutional. However, federal courts retain the power to create federal common law in specific areas related to federal rights and interests.Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction (5th ed. 2007), Aspen Publishers, p. 365-366.

Facts

This dispute revolved around diverting water from the La Plata River, a tributary to the Colorado River.

Judgment

Significance

An archetypical example of such federal common law is that relating to disputes between states of the United States. Hinderlider was the first case to reaffirm the existence of federal common law for other purposes, specifically here, the interpretation of an interstate compact governing water rights between states.Chemerinsky, p. 385-386.