Legal Opinion

Farrell v. City of Ontario

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 3, 1919No. Civ. No. 2783PublishedCited by 45 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

MYERS, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants. He concedes its correctness, however, as to the defendants other than the city of Ontario. Plaintiff, as the owner of certain lands situate a short distance south of the southerly limits of that city, charges the defendants with having constructed a certain ditch and culvert, the effect of which was to divert storm waters upon plaintiff’s lands to their injury. It is alleged that in January, 1916, large quantities of storm waters were so diverted upon plaintiff’s lands, to his damage in the sum of ten thousand…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Martin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Koppikus v. State Capitol Comm'rsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Watson v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Becker v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. People v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Archer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Anderson v. WhippleIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
  5. People v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926

40 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