Legal Opinion

O'Leary v. Herbert

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1936No. Sac. 4805PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Plaintiffs each brought an action claiming damages against the defendants and seeking injunctive relief. It is alleged that plaintiffs have been damaged through the cessation of the flow of water from a spring on their lands claimed to have been caused by a tunnel, dug and driven by Hastings Quicksilver Mining Company, piercing an underground reservoir which fed the spring on plaintiffs’ property. The water from the underground reservoir, it is further alleged, was being allowed to run to waste through the tunnel, and the underground reservoir supplying it has been drained to a point below…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Higgins v. L.A. Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Hudson v. DaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Kalis v. ShattuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  2. Shaw v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Safranek v. Town of LimonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951
  4. Shell Oil Co. v. RichterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Freed v. Manchester Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958

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