Domrese v. City of Roslyn
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal' from a judgment of the superior court for Kittitas county, Taylor, J., entered May 9, 1917, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action in tort.
1Opinion of the CourtChadwick, J.
The facts in this case are partially stated in our opinion in the case of Domrese v. Roslyn, 89 Wash. 106, 154 Pac. 140.
Plaintiff makes further allegation of fact that, before the waters of Cedar creek, or Domrese creek, as it is called in this case, were diverted in whole or in part, plaintiff had put a part of her lands to crop and had used the waters of the stream to irrigate them, that her lands are dry and arid, and that crops cannot be grown or matured thereon without the use of water. This action was brought to recover compensation for the diversion of the water and for the right of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1894
- Aylmore v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Jacobs v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Domrese v. City of RoslynWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Still v. Palouse Irrigation & Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Highline School District No. 401 v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1976
- Ackerman v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Litka v. City of AnacortesWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Price v. Humptulips Driving Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923
- Ackerman v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1960