Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Robinson

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 29, 1941No. Civ. 6363PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TPIE COURT.

This action was brought to quiet title to the lands of appellants; to recover damages for injury done to said property; and to abate a nuisance. The trial court found for respondents upon all issues, and the following judgment was entered:

“That the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs to the above described property is subject to the prescriptive right of defendants to permit waters to percolate, flow and seep from the ditch of defendants described in said second amended complaint under, in and upon the hereinbefore de scribed lands of plaintiffs to the same extent and in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Middelkamp v. Bessemer Irrigating Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  2. Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Parker v. LarsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Kall v. CarruthersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Massetti v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Avner v. Longridge EstatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  2. Day v. ArmstrongWyoming Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Young v. YoungWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Miller v. JohnstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977

10 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