Legal Opinion
Eikland v. Casey
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 16, 1923No. 3974PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
There was more testimony at the second trial than there was at the first upon the extent of the rainfall which caused the rise of the creek. Nevertheless, considering all of the testimony, we are of the opinion that it fell far short of proving that the flooding was so far due to natural causes, directly and exclusively without human intervention, that it could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight and care reasonably to have been expected of the defendants. Eikland v. Casey (C.C.A.) 266 F. 821, 12 A.L.R. 179. The court, therefore, should have…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Losee v. . BuchananNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Price v. Oregon RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1906
- Dahlgren v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
- Central, Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1893
- Lyon v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Heckaman v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1933
- Inland Power & Light Co. v. GriegerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
- Inland Power & Light Co. v. GriegerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937