Heinlen v. Heildron
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSearls, J.
This is an action to recover damages for the diversion of water from Cole Slough, or Kings River, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from diverting the waters thereof.
The cause was tried by the court, a jury having been waived, findings in writing filed, upon which judgment in favor of plaintiff was rendered for one hundred dollars damages, and awarding a perpetual injunction against defendants, restraining them from maintaining any dam or dams in Cole Slough or the channel thereof, or from in any manner interfering with the waters thereof, or obstructing or diverting…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hillman v. NewingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Sharp v. DaugneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Keyes v. Little York Gold Washing & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1879
- Kimple v. ConwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Mondran v. GouxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Locke v. MoultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Fawkes v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Perkins v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
- Tripcevich v. ComptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Hoover v. WolfeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.