Legal Opinion

San Antonio Water Co. v. Bodenhamer

California Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1901No. L.A. No. 628PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

—Appeal from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction. The plaintiff is a corporation formed for the purpose of supplying the owners of land in the Ontario Colony tract with water, and in fact supplies with water for domestic use, some two thousand five hundred people, and with water for irrigation, some six thousand acres of land, planted in fruit trees and vineyard, and dependent for water on the plaintiff. The defendant Bodenhamer was the predecessor in title and interest of the defendant corporation, and is now a contractor and agent of the latter. These parties, for a period…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Arnold v. BrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co. v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Williams v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Richter v. KabatMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co. v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
  3. Voorhies v. GreeneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  4. Flood v. E. L. Goldstein Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Simms v. NPCK Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003

10 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