Baugh v. Garl
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
Parties litigate their dispute over water rights despite a settlement agreement signed years earlier. The trial court resolves the dispute by enjoining the defendant from tapping into plaintiffs’ pipeline that carries water to plaintiffs’ property. Because the action is one in equity, defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees because they sought to enforce the settlement agreement, which contains an attorney fees clause. We affirm.
FACTS
Jeanette Keiper, as trustee for her family trust, is the owner of a 20-acre parcel of property…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Jackson v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Moshonov v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Sheller v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- People v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Schram Construction, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.