Legal Opinion

Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.

California Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1927No. Docket No. Sac. 3846PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

The purpose of this action iá to settle and determine the respective claims of plaintiff and defendant to the waters of Pall River in Shasta County. By its second amended and supplemental complaint plaintiff claims a right to the first continuous flow of said stream as against defendant to the extent of 240 cubic feet per second, basing said claim upon the provisions of two permits issued by the division of water rights of the state department of public works and hereinafter more fully described. Defendant by its amended answer denied the validity of both said permits; denied that on the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
  3. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Southern Service Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Miller v. McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956

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

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

Powered by the Exa API