Legal Opinion
Rich v. McClure
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 29, 1926No. Docket No. 3030PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
This is an appeal from the judgment herein requiring the defendants to “proceed to hear and act upon” the plaintiff’s “application for a permit to appropriate” ten second-feet of the water in Lindsay Slough, a tributary of the Sacramento River, for municipal purposes.
The complaint sets out the application in full, including a map which accompanied and was made a part of the application. The parts of the application material to the questions raised by the appeal are as follows: “The use to which the water is to he applied is for municipal purposes. . . . The pipe line to he 24 miles in length,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Tulare Water Co. v. State Water CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Anderson v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Benton v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Careaga v. FernaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Cantrell v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Mann v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- People Ex Rel. McGroarty v. City of AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.