Katz v. Walkinshaw
California Supreme Court
The main facts are stated in the opinion of the court on the original hearing in Bant. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court on rehearing.
1Opinion of the Court
A rehearing was granted in this case for the purpose of considering more fully, and by the aid of such additional arguments as might be presented by persons not parties to the action, but vitally interested in the principle involved, a question that is novel and of the utmost importance to the application to useful purposes of the waters which may be found in the soil.
Petitions for rehearing were presented not only in behalf of the defendant, but also on behalf of a number of corporations engaged in the business of obtaining water from wells and distributing the same for public and private…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Van Ness v. PacardSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- The People v. . the Canal AppraisersNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Beardsley v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883
- Carson v. BlazerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by159 opinions
- People v. PoseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- In Re Water Use Permit ApplicationsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
154 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.