Legal Opinion

Heinlen v. Cross

California Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1883PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Application for a writ of mandamus to the judge of the Superior Court of Tulare County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

The present petitioner is plaintiff in a certain action which was brought in the Superior Court of Tulare County against the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company for the recovery of damages, and an injunction perpetually restraining the defendant in the action from diverting, or in any manner interfering with certain waters. After trial final judgment was entered in the action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for eleven thousand dollars damages, and perpetually enjoining the defendant, its agents, employees, etc., from diverting or in any manner interfering with the waters,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Merced Mining Co. v. FremontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  2. Hicks v. MichaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. State ex rel. Matthews v. ChaseIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Ortman v. DixonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Lambert v. HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Ford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  4. Hennessy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Wolf v. GallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

18 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