Legal Opinion

Crane v. Stevinson

California Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1936No. Sac. 4924PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConrey, J.

The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land, including particularly sections seven, eight, seventeen and eighteen in township 8 south, range 12 east, in the county of Merced, and riparian to a natural watercourse known as Bear Creek. In bringing this action, besides asserting all the rights of a riparian owner in and to the natural flow of the waters of the creek, plaintiff by his complaint claims to be the owner by appropriation of the right to take, divert and use upon his said land 50 cubic feet per second of water of said creek, and of the right to capture the said water upon his land…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Smith v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Smith v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Southern California Investment Co. v. WilshireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. People v. ShirokowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. City of Santa Maria v. AdamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  5. City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

21 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