Hercules Water Co. v. Fernandez
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Morrison & Cope, and Morrison, Cope & Brobeck, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Eminent domain. The complaint alleges corporate organization of plaintiff under the laws of this state, for the purposes, among others, of acquiring water rights, “on one or more rivers, creeks or streams within the state of California; of acquiring, purchasing, erecting, constructing, holding,' owning, improving and leasing dams, reser voirs, tanks, canals, flumes, aqueducts, ditches, pipe-lines and other water-ways or conduits and securing and impounding springs, streams and all other water-ways; of buying, selling, owning, or otherwise dealing in, water for domestic, irrigation,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. GaltIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Wiggins v. Muscupiabe Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- City of Syracuse v. . StaceyNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Lindsay Irrigation Co. v. MehrtensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. WarfordArizona Supreme Court · 1949
- Northern Light & Power Co. v. StacherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910