Legal Opinion

Holland v. Columbia Irrigation District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1969No. 39631PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeill, J.

Two actions for damage to plaintiffs’ properties caused by the overflow of an irrigation ditch were consolidated for jury trial. The court ordered separate trials on the issues of liability and damages. Upon completion of the plaintiffs’ cases at the trial as to liability, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs live on the east side of South Dayton Place, between West 16th and West 18th Avenues in Kennewick, but not in adjoining premises. An irrigation ditch owned and operated by defendant is located to the rear of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Billingsley v. Rovig-Temple Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Miller v. Payless Drug Stores of Washington, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Clark v. Icicle Irrigation DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  4. White v. FennerWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rikstad v. HolmbergWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Hunt v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
  3. Fochtman v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972
  4. Brown v. DahlCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
  5. Bott v. Rockwell InternationalCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996

7 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