Legal Opinion

Turner v. the James Canal Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1909No. Sac. No. 1605PublishedCited by 23 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The defendants have appealed from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

There is no substantial conflict in the evidence upon any important fact in issue. The questions presented relate to matters of- law applicable to the facts found and to the legal effect of the evidence.

The plaintiffs each own a tract of land in Merced County riparian to the San Joaquin River, their combined holdings aggregating some six thousand acres. They sue to enjoin the defendants from diverting water from said river. The defendant, the J. G. James Company, owns something near twenty…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Lamprey v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Delaplaine v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  3. Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Chowchilla Farms Inc. v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Proctor v. SimWashington Supreme Court · 1925

18 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