Legal Opinion
Stapp v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 6, 1917No. Civ. No. 1646PublishedCited by 24 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action for damages to real and personal property of plaintiff and his assignors, eight in number. Since 1872, defendant and its predecessors and grantors have appropriated and diverted the waters of the Fresno River and have operated an irrigation system, its intake being situated in said river at a point about two miles northeast of the city of Madera.
The court found:
“1. That the defendant’s dam across the Fresno River was so constructed that the flash or retaining boards could not be approached during floods and removed to relieve pressure; that defendant did not remove at this…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Zabriskie v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Judson v. Giant Powder Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Schneider v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Wahlgreen v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Chidester v. Consolidated Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Fulton v. Chouteau County Farmers' Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1934
- Andersen v. EdwardsAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
- Wikstrom v. Yolo Fliers ClubCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Lawrence v. GoodwillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.