Legal Opinion

Moore v. Clear Lake Water Works

California Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1885No. 9452PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yulo County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMorrison, C. J.

This case comes before us on the judgment roll alone; and the principal points are as to the sufficiency of the complaint and findings to support the judgment. The alleged cause of complaint is the *148diversion of water by defendant from plaintiff's ditch, from a stream known as Cache Creek, in the county of Yolo. There are two counts in the complaint; the first of which alleges: “That the plaintiff is the owner and in the possession of a certain water ditch in said Yolo County, generally known and called the Woodland or Moore's Ditch, which commences and heads in a natural watercourse or stream…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Webb v. Portland Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1838
  2. Carey v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Pralus v. Pac. Gold & Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Richards v. KirkpatrickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Felsenthal v. WarringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Fritz v. MillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

27 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