Legal Opinion

Pabst v. Finmand

California Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1922No. Sac. No. 3132PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This action was instituted by the plaintiffs, Charlie Lee Pabst and the Priors, against H.H. Finmand and N.H. Finmand and the Cambrons, to quiet title to the waters of Eagle Creek, in the county of Modoc, state of California. Eagle Creek, rising in the Warner Mountains, west of the lands of both plaintiffs and defendants, flows in a single channel until just before it reaches the land of the plaintiffs, Priors, and the defendant, N.H. Finmand. There it forks and…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Sturr v. BeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  5. Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. People v. ShirokowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929

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

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

Powered by the Exa API