Legal Opinion

Rose v. Mesmer

California Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1904No. L.A. No. 1192PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an appeal by seventeen defendants from an order denying their motion for a new trial. It is claimed that the findings are in many particulars unsupported by the evidence. The parties are very numerous and the issues exceedingly complicated, so that it is impossible without unduly extending this opinion to give anything like a complete statement of the various features of the ease.

The object of the suit was to determine the respective rights of all the parties to the waters of Ballona Creek, in Los Angeles County, and to enjoin certain defendants from using more of the water than their…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wade v. DerayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Christy v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Fogarty v. FogartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Bennett v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913

13 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