Felsenthal v. Warring
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.
The controversy which resulted in-this action arose concerning the right to water flowing in Hopper Creek, in Ventura County, and the asserted right of defendants to reconstruct and maintain a ditch across plaintiff’s land.
Plaintiff owns 137% acres of land riparian to the' creek. Of this tract about thirteen acres are suitable for cultivation. Defendants own lands in the same vicinity, only a small portion of which is riparian to the stream.
[1] In 1870, when plaintiff’s land was still a part of the public domain, defendants constructed a dam in the creek at a place within what is now…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Winslow v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Sullivan v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1884
- Evans v. Reading Chemical Fertilizing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Lefrooth v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Hannah v. PogueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Christensen v. TuckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Conley v. WhittleseyIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.