Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton Ex Rel. Compton
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLockwood, J.
Counsel for plaintiff in briefing their motion for a rehearing have not called to our attention a single point not covered in their original brief and argument, or not considered by us before rendering- our decision. They have most ably and exhaustively presented again their original contentions as to the principles of law which they believe should govern the case at bar, and courteously but firmly insist that we have failed utterly to grasp the meaning of the cases on which they rely and have ignored their applicability to the circumstances of this case.
We think counsel in their natural and…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. BrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Walsh v. Fitchburg RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. MorganTexas Supreme Court · 1898
- Deming v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1926
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- MacNeil v. PerkinsArizona Supreme Court · 1958
- Thomas v. Holliday by and Through HollidaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Edwards v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
- Scarborough v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1941
- Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.