Legal Opinion
Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Polak
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 24, 1925No. 4461PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
It is earnestly contended that the defendants were improperly joined in the action as tort-feasors; that there was no allegation in the complaint and no proof on the trial of any joint mining or milling operations or joint deposit of waste material by the defendants; It may be conceded that by the weight of authority it is settled that, where several persons act separately and independently and not in concert, there is no joint liability for their separate torts in cases of nuisance or the pollution of streams. Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 87 Cal. 430, 25…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. SandersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Miller v. Highland Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Pickerill v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- City of Kansas City v. SlangstromSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Husky Refining Co. v. BarnesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
- Watson v. Chevrolet Motor Co. of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Luama v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- MacOmb v. Extension Ditch Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1950
- Robicheaux v. Sun Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.