Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the beneficial consumptive use made of the McCanne Ditch water for irrigation of the 300 acres of land. Id. at 56. Decrees for irrigation rights that erroneously determined tributary water sources to be “nontributary” or “independent of other priorities,” despite their tributary characteristics, are protected by res judicata as long as the water right is operated in conformity with the decree. See Closed Basin Landowners Ass’n v. Rio Grande Water Conservation Dist., 734 P.2d 627, 637 (Colo. 1987)(“A trial court has jurisdiction to render an erroneous decision, which may be reviewed on appeal. Consequently, a judgment entered within the jurisdiction of the court, even though wrong, is not subject to collateral attack.”); State Eng’r v. Smith Cattle, Inc., 780 P.2d 546, 549 (Colo.l989)(<HOLDING>). However, a change of water right application 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred successive lawsuits by siblings asserting the same claims because the doctrine of res judicata bars both parties and their privies from relitigating an issue already decided (B) holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of an allegedly erroneous court determination that certain waters were not tributary to the arkansas river (C) holding that res judicata prevents relitigation of a claim that was previously the subject of a valid and final decision of this court (D) holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant (E) holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings
Output (English): holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant