Legal Opinion

Arkoosh v. Big Wood Canal Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1929No. 5271Published

1Opinion

On Rehearing.

BAKER, District Judge.

— -Respondents Hans Sorenson and Merl C. Sorenson asked for a rehearing, contending that the original opinion herein denied them their appropriation of water for domestic use during the nonirrigation season granted by the Frost decree.

We believe that a proper interpretation of the Frost decree is that while it awarded to respondents and their predecessors a right to use, during the irrigation season, a particular quantity of water for irrigation and allied purposes, it was too indefinite and uncertain to award to them another or separate and distinct right…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Reno v. RichardsIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Walsh v. WallaceNevada Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Nephi Irrigation Co. v. VickersUtah Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Powers v. PerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  5. Lee v. HanfordIdaho Supreme Court · 1912

2 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