Legal Opinion

Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1991No. 18209PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McDEVITT, Justice.

This is an action by the plaintiffs to recover damages due to the defendant’s alleged negligence in flooding the plaintiffs’ various properties. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was negligent in its release of water from the Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir. Salmon River Canal Company sought relief from the Buhl Highway District and the Twin Falls Highway District (the highway districts) alleging the flooding was caused by their negligent design and construction of a highway crossing. 1 The case was bifurcated and trial was held to determine liability only; the issue of…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. State v. CoeWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. CampbellIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. State v. McKenzieMontana Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State v. MartinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Pocatello Industrial Park Co. v. Steel West, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Urrutia v. Blaine CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  3. Lawton v. City of PocatelloIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd.Idaho Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Clark v. KleinIdaho Supreme Court · 2002

23 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