Legal Opinion

Lukrich v. Rodgers

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 8, 1959No. Civ. No. 18346PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOLEY, J. pro tem.*

Defendants appeal from a judgment enjoining them from continuing to maintain or here*3after erecting or constructing any dike, barrier, or other obstruction on their lands designated as Lot 9, obstructing, concentrating, diverting or otherwise deflecting the natural flow of water from Salsipuedes Creek and watershed north of said lands of defendants over and across the lands of defendants, and ordering them forthwith to undertake and complete the removal from Lot 9 of all artificial dikes, levees, barriers, ditches and obstructions to the seasonal flow of waters of and from…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Horton v. GoodenoughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Chowchilla Farms Inc. v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. The Weinberg Co. v. BixbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Mogle v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Everett v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rutherford v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  2. United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2016
  3. Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API