Churchill v. Louie
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to restrain defendant from diverting the waters of Butte Creek, Siskiyou County, and for damages.
The cause was tried by a jury, and a general verdict was rendered for plaintiff, assessing his damages at five hundred dollars. The court made full findings of facts, and found, as did the jury, that plaintiff was damaged by defendant in the sum of five hundred dollars; that plaintiff was entitled to the uninterrupted flow of one thousand inches of water, under a four-inch pressure, flowing through the stream, and decreed that defendant be restrained from diverting any of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Unger v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Donahue v. MeisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Crocker v. CarpenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Manning v. DallasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Davis v. JudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Shapiro v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Farrell v. City of OntarioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Tannhauser v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- City of Los Angeles v. HannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.