Chrisman v. Southern California Edison Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
McLUCAS, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff brought suit for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the failure and neglect of the defendant to furnish necessary water for the irrigation of certain lands of the plaintiff. Defendant appeals from a judgment rendered for plaintiff.
Before any evidence was taken defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and for dismissal of the action on the ground that the amended complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that the agreements attached to and made a part of the amended complaint are each of them void for want…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Teller v. Bay and River Dredging Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Cates v. McNeilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Wright v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bard v. KentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Davis v. JacobyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Abers v. RounsavellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.