Legal Opinion

Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1907No. L.A. No. 1629PublishedCited by 56 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County and from an order denying a new trial. Benjamin F. Bledsoe, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an action to enjoin the defendants from diverting water from the Santa Ana River. Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, as prayed for, was given in the court below. The defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial;

The plaintiffs own lands through which the Santa -Ana River flows. They have been accustomed for many years to irrigate this land with waters from the river, and for that purpose there is required during the irrigating season a continuous flow of four hundred miner’s inches of water. The defendants, or some of them, own land on…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Diedrich v. Northwestern Union Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915

51 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