Legal Opinion

Turner v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1915No. Sac. No. 2268PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The record presents an appeal by the defendant from the judgment, upon the judgment-roll alone. The same judgment-roll was before the court heretofore upon an appeal by the plaintiffs from that part of the judgment declaring that the defendants were entitled to divert from the San Joaquin River two hundred and eighty-one second feet of water, (Turner v. East Side etc. Co., 168 Cal. 103, [142 Pac. 69].)

Upon the appeal by the plaintiffs above referred to the part of the judgment appealed from was reversed and the cause was remanded for a new trial to determine whether or not the defendant was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. California Pastoral & Agriculture Co. v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Gervaise v. BrookinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Turner v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Webster v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Collier v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

11 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