Legal Opinion

Richfield Cottonwood Irr. Co. v. City of Richfield

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1934No. 5303PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ELIAS HANSEN, Justice.

Plaintiff ánd defendant each seek, in this suit, to have quieted its claimed right to the use of the water of Cottonwood creek. The court below awarded defendant a first and prior right to a stream of 3 cubic feet per second measured at the mouth of Cottonwood Canyon. Plaintiff was awarded the right to the use of the remainder of the water of the creek. Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal. It contends that the city was awarded too much water. By its assignments of error appellant attacks the decree entered in the cause by the court below because of alleged error in the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sowards v. MeagherUtah Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Salt Lake City v. GardnerUtah Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. ShurtliffUtah Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Gunnison Irr. Co. v. Gunnison Highland Canal Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Cleary v. DanielsUtah Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Butler, Crockett & Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Eskelsen v. Town of PerryUtah Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Tooele County v. De La MareUtah Supreme Court · 1935
  4. In Re Gen. Determination of Rights of WaterUtah Supreme Court · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API