Legal Opinion
Schultz v. Town of Lakeport
California Supreme Court
Decided February 24, 1936No. Sac. 4989PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of the shutting off of water from his residence. The plaintiff had judgment in the sum of $450. The defendants appealed.
The defendant town, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, operated a municipally owned system for supplying water to its inhabitants. The plaintiff devoted one-fifth of an acre of his residence lot to the cultivation of fruit, vegetables, flowers and bulbs, and a small lawn. About April, 1927, he commenced talcing water from the municipal water supply for irrigation and…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- McEntee v. . Kingston Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Wood v. City of AuburnSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1895
- Sims v. Alabama Water Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Dodd v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- 999, a Corporation, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. C.I.T. Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant/appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- State Department of Health Services v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Cambridge Electric Light Co. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.