Legal Opinion
Coneland Water Co. v. Nickalls
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 16, 1925No. Docket No. 2974PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
Plaintiff brought this action for an adjudication of its rights and duties under its contract with defendant to furnish him water for the irrigation of his land, consisting of twenty acres. The contract, executed September 29, 1908, is attached to the complaint and made a part thereof. It has been held that the plaintiff is not a public utility and is not subject to the rate-fixing jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission. (McCullagh v. Railroad Commission, 190 Cal. 13 [210 Pac. 264].) The parts of the contract material to the questions arising on this appeal are as follows:
“The party of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Horton v. WinbiglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Auerbach v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Champion v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
- Vecki v. SorensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Stafford v. California Canning Peach GrowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Central Mfrs. Mut. Ins. v. Jim Dandy Markets, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1948
- Weaver v. RatcliffeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931