Teeter v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, iu and for the County of Ada. Hon. Fremont Wood, Judge. Action by plaintiff for an injunction. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Defendant’s canal was never designed for the protection of plaintiff’s land against violent floods in the winter time.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, iu and for the County of Ada. Hon. Fremont Wood, Judge. Action by plaintiff for an injunction. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Defendant’s canal was never designed for the protection of plaintiff’s land against violent floods in the winter time. It was planned for the safe carriage of a specific quantity of artificial water in the summer time; and in so far as defendant and its predecessors in interest have from time to time permitted flood water to run into the canal, rendering it unsafe and dangerous, they have…
1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, J.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff for the purpose of securing judgment restraining and enjoining the defendant, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, from maintaining a spillway in its canal and from using the same to turn out flood waters so as to flow over and across the plaintiff’s land. The court heard the proofs and rendered and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff enjoining and restraining defendant from maintaining the spillway, as the same had been constructed in its canal, and from turning out the waters on to the lands of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff owns a farm in…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1991
- Dayley v. City of BurleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1974
- Merrill v. PenrodIdaho Court of Appeals · 1985
- Smith v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Verdell Olson v. Phillip F. MoultonIdaho Supreme Court · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.