Legal Opinion

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Mitchell

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1905No. 13,874PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to the district court for Richardson county: John S. Stull, Judge.

1Opinion of the Court

Oldham, C.

This was an action for damages for injuries to growing crops on about 60 acres of land owned by the plaintiffs out of the E. ■§ of the N. W. \ and the W. J of the N. E. ¿ of section 11, township 2, range 13 east, in Eichardson county, Nebraska, which damages were alleged to have been occasioned by- the negligent .construction of a ditch along defendant’s right of way, which diverted the waters from their natural channel in the Nemaha river, and discharged the same upon plaintiffs’ land to the injury of the growing crops thereon, in the years, 1893, 1895 and 1896. Defendant’s line of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. EmmertNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad v. HarlinNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Gartner v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Morse v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Boyd v. Lincoln & Northwestern RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Heiden v. Loup River Public Power DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Reed v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Smith v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1908

4 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