Legal Opinion

Lindsay Irrigation Co. v. Mehrtens

California Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1893No. 18003PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

The plaintiff is incorporated under the laws of this state for the purpose of supplying water for irrigation and domestic use, and other purposes to which water may be put, to the farming neighborhood surrounding and lying contiguous to the town of Lindsay, in the county of Tulare, and seeks in this proceeding to condemn certain lands for the purpose of constructing a ditch or canal through which to conduct water from Kaweali River to said farming neighborhood. Judgment was rendered in its favor for a condemnation of the land sought to be appropriated by it, and fixing, the amount of damage…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re the Bonds of the Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Aliso Water Co. v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. City of Phoenix v. DonofrioArizona Supreme Court · 1965
  2. City of Oakland v. Oakland RaidersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Jacobsen v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Kansas & Texas Coal Railway v. Northwestern Coal & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901

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