Legal Opinion

Clendenin v. White

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 25, 1923No. Civ. No. 2621PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and defendants are adjoining land owners, plaintiff’s land being higher in elevation than that of defendants; that there are certain springs on plaintiff's land from which water flows over and across plaintiff’s and defendants’ lands through a ditch constructed “in a well-defined depression where the water from said springs formerly flowed before the construction of said ditch”; that more than twenty years ago, “plaintiff and defendants by mutual consent and with the express understanding and agreement that said ditch should be used jointly across the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Stoner v. ZuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Alderman v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
  3. Ford v. Lou Kum ShuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  4. Pope v. J. K. Armsby Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Gravelly Ford Canal Co. v. Pope & Talbot Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cooke v. RamponiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Hulsman v. IrelandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Rentfro v. DettwilerMontana Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Stegeman v. VandeventerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API