Hudson v. Dailey
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff, Victoria Hudson, alleges that she is the owner of seven hundred and sixty acres of land in the Rancho de la Puente, that said land is riparian to a stream of water known as San Jose Creek and is entitled to riparian rights therein, and to receive of its waters for use thereon a flow of two hundred and fifty miner’s inches of water, that the water of said, stream is directly supplied to it from the saturated soils and gravels of the valley through which it runs, that the defendants have bored a number of wells in said valley from which, some by artesian pressure and some-by…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- City of San Bernardino v. City of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.