City of Corpus Christi v. City of Pleasanton
Texas Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Calvert
Our main question here is whether it is waste to transport water produced from artesian wells by flowing it down a natural stream bed and through lakes with consequent loss of water by evaporation, transpiration, and seepage. For a detailed statement of the facts, reference is made to the opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals on the plea of privilege in Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. City of Pleasanton, at 251 S.W. 2d 777, and on the main case, 263 S.W. 2d 797, affirming a trial court judgment against petitioners enjoining them from flowing their wells into the river but staying…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The Texas Co. v. BurkettTexas Supreme Court · 1927
- Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. EastTexas Supreme Court · 1904
- Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1862
- Stillwater Water Co. v. FarmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. City of PleasantonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 2005
- Samuel v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
- Hendee v. Dewhurst, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2007
- Hall v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1967
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.