Legal Opinion

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Egenhoff

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 21, 1943No. Civ. No. 12548PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J. pro tem.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment quieting plaintiff’s title to an easement to construct and maintain a dam on defendant’s property during certain periods of each year and enjoining defendant’s interference therewith.

Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in furnishing water for irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley. It maintains for this purpose a canal which passes through defendant’s lands within a two hundred foot right of way. The canal runs approximately north and south. At a point on defendant’s land the San Luis Creek with a flow generally from west to east…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Winslow v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Frost v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. North Fork Water Co. v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dahl v. RettigColorado Court of Appeals · 1973
  2. Gayton v. LebedinaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Board of Directors of Turlock Irrigation District v. FairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. SARALE v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. SARALE v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API