Legal Opinion

Henrici v. Paulson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs

that their right to appropriate the water of this spring by filing on the same in the office of the state engineer has not been adjudicated.

The spring and waters thereof, involved herein, are the exclusive property of defendants. The water of the spring is not subject to appropriation by the plaintiffs; therefore, there is no necessity for the right of way sought to be condemned: Boyce v. Cupper, 37 Or. 256 (61 P. 642); Morrison v. Officer, 48 Or. 569 (87 P. 896); Hayes v. Adams, 109 Or. 51 (218 P. 933); Willow Creek Irr. Co. v. Michaelson, 21 Utah…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Willow Creek Irrigation Co. v. MichaelsonUtah Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Deseret Live Stock Co. v. HooppianiaUtah Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Boyce v. CupperOregon Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Fitzstephens v. WATSONOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Skinner v. SilverOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Beisell Et Ux. v. Wood Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Cleaver v. JuddOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Messinger v. WoodcockOregon Supreme Court · 1938

1 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