Legal Opinion

Bristor v. Cheatham

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1952No. 5334PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHELPS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action in which plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from abstracting and di*231verting or using any waters which plaintiffs were pumping from domestic wells on their respective properties and for damages sustained.

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs have been the owners of the properties upon which they reside for many years and have been in possession thereof and expended large sums of money improving their land by building homes thereon, boring wells for domestic purposes, and various…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Wyoming v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Town of Chino Valley v. City of PrescottArizona Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Bristor v. CheathamArizona Supreme Court · 1953
  3. State Ex Rel. Morrison v. AnwayArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Jarvis v. State Land Department, City of TucsonArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  5. In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & SourceArizona Supreme Court · 1993

12 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