Legal Opinion

Noh v. Stoner

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1933No. 5856PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGiyens, J.

Respondents sued for and were granted an injunction, restraining appellants, adjoining land owners, from further depleting an artesian basin tapped by respondents’ two wells, drilled and operated prior to appellants’ well. Both parties rely upon the proposition that subterranean waters of the nature herein are subject to appropriation and diversion as surface waters and are governed by the same rule of priority. (LeQuime v. Chambers, 15 Ida. 405, 98 Pac. 415, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 76; Bower v. Moorman, 27 Ida. 162, 247 Pac. 496, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 99; Hinton v. Little, 50 Ida. 371, 296 Pac. 582;…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Barrows v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Le Quime v. ChambersIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Bower v. MoormanIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Silkey v. TiegsIdaho Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. SpackmanIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1973
  3. A & B Irrigation District v. Idaho Department of Water ResourcesIdaho Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Hanson v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Stevenson v. SteeleIdaho Supreme Court · 1969

5 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