Legal Opinion

Reclamation District No. 833 v. Quigley

California Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1937No. Sac. No. 5012PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant, T. L. Quigley, to compel him to remove a flashboard dam from lateral A (a part of the reclamation works of plaintiff) and to enjoin him from interfering with or impounding any of the water flowing therein. The theory of its complaint is that in 1925 it granted the defendant permission to install the dam in the lateral subject to its right to have it removed at any time; that by the maintenance of the dam in the summer months the owner of the property adjoining defendant’s on the east had been damaged by seepage water and that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Hart v. WaltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  3. Adams v. WolffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Talbott v. Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
  5. Brooks v. Pension BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

7 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