Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Henrylyn Irrigation District

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 6, 1926No. Nos. 11,151, 11,290PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke

Plaintiee in error Theodore H. Thomas, is hereinafter referred to as “ Thomas ’ ’; plaintiff in error Henry Howard, Jr., as “Howard”; defendant in error the Henrylyn Irrigation District (and its hoard of directors) as “the district”; defendant in error the hoard of county commissioners of Weld county as “the county”; and all the defendants in error as “defendants.” Interstate Trust Co. v. M. V. Irr. Dist., 66 Colo. 219, 181 Pac. 123, is hereinafter referred to as “the Montezuma ease”; Henrylyn Irr. Dist. et al. v. Thomas, 66 Colo. 296, 181 Pac. 979, as “the demand case”; and Henrylyn Irr.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  2. Henrylyn Irrigation District v. ThomasSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  3. Henrylyn Irrigation District v. ThomasSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Divide Creek Irr. Dist. v. HollingsworthCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  2. Denver-Greeley Valley Irr. Dist. v. McNeilCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
  3. Board of County Commissioners v. HeathSupreme Court of Colorado · 1930
  4. Denver-Greeley Valley Irr. Dist. v. McNeilCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
  5. Heath v. Green City Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932

5 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