Spring Valley Water Works v. Drinkhouse
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of this state for the purpose of supplying the city and county of San Francisco and its inhabitants with water, and is engaged in that business. This action is brought to condemn certain land of the defendant as part of a reservoir site, and which is alleged by the plaintiff to be necessary for it in the prosecution of the said business for which plaintiff was created. The answer of defendant, among other things, denies that such intended use of the land sought to be taken is a public use, or that the same was necessary for the purpose…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Cent. Pac. R.R. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- B. & M. R. R. v. SchluntzNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
- Russell v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- People v. La MacChiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- City of Los Angeles v. DeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Long Beach City High School District v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.