Proper v. Sutter Drainage District
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
The plaintiff recovered judgment against all of the defendants excepting Hauss for damages to plaintiff’s crop of barley alleged to have been caused by water from' the drainage canals of the defendant district. The defendants Giblin, Walton, and Hauss were trustees of the district at the time of the alleged damage.
The lands on which the crop of barley was growing were protected on the west by a ridge and on the east by an old railroad embankment, prior to the construction of the district’s canals. The main canal of the district runs in a general southwesterly direction on the west side of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Perkins v. BlauthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Bradbury v. Vandalia Levee & Drainage DistrictIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
- Cole v. Roebling Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Alexander v. Central Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. StanleyAlaska Supreme Court · 1973
- Fernelius v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Hilton v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Whitt v. ReedCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1951
- Kittle Manufacturing Co. v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.