Legal Opinion

Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1918No. Sac. No. 2552. Department OnePublishedCited by 38 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Plumas County. H. D. Gregory, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The defendant has for many years maintained a reservoir in Round Valley, Plumas County, impounding water by means of a dam at the head of North Canyon, a narrow ravine leading from the northerly end of the valley. Sales of water so stored have been made from time to time to consumers at various points below the dam. When this action was commenced the plaintiff was in possession, under the then owner, of certain mining property situate in North Canyon, a short distance below the defendant’s dam. Pending the suit, plaintiff has acquired title to such property.

The action was brought upon the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Los Angeles Cemetery Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Utt v. FreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Smith v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Texas Water Rights Commission v. WrightTexas Supreme Court · 1971
  3. State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Casitas Municipal Water District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
  5. Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926

33 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