Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Water District v. Imperial Irrigation District

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 30, 2000No. B119968PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TURNER, P. J.

I. Introduction

State law mandates that the owner of a water conveyance system with unused capacity allow others to use the facility to transport water. The use of a water conveyance facility by someone other than the owner or operator to transport water is referred to as “wheeling.” In return for wheeling, the water conveyance system owner is entitled to “fair compensation.” (Wat. Code,1 § 1810.) The question in this case is whether as a matter of law the “Wheeling Statutes” (§§ 1810-1814) prevent the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California from adopting a fixed…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Cornell v. City & Cnty. of S.F., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated ProceedingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Mt. Hawley Insurance v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  5. AILANTO PROPERTIES, INC. v. City of Half Moon BayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

30 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