Inyo Consol. Water Co. v. Jess
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Hunsaker & Britt, P. W. Forbes, and Andrew H. Rose, for Appellant. Leslie R. Hewitt, City Attorney, John W. .Shenk, City Attorney, Ben H. Yandell, and W. B. Matthews, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The court below sustained a general demurrer to the. second amended complaint. Plaintiff refused to amend further. Thereupon judgment was given for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
The first count of the complaint purports to allege a cause of action, under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine the alleged conflicting claims of the plaintiff and defendants, respectively, to the right to use the waters of Cottonwood Creek, in Inyo County, and to the right to divert such waters for use. The complaint alleges that the city of Los Angeles has a prior right to divert and use 180…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Wells v. MantesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Maeris v. BicknellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Kelly v. Natoma Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1856
- Mitchell v.Amador Canal & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Haight v. CostanichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Palmer Etc. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Fullerton v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.