Legal Opinion
Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided July 6, 1923PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
— We will consider first the rights of the East Fork Irrigation District, which involves the condition of its predecessor, the East Fork Irrigation Company appropriation and the system of irrigation. The rights of the company, the District’s predecessor, were initiated under the legislative enactment of 1891, Section 6525 et seq., L. O. L. Several sections of the act of 1891 were amended and several repealed in 1913: Gen. Laws 1913, p. 138. The later enactment of 1909, known as the Water Code, preserves existing rights under former laws and provides that such rights shall he adjudicated under…
2Cases cited65 opinions
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Kansas v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Clark v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- In Re Water Use Permit ApplicationsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
- Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Rupert Ex Rel. Rupert v. StienneNevada Supreme Court · 1974
- In Re Waters of Long Valley Creek Stream SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.