Legal Opinion
Cooper v. Gibson
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 31, 1933No. Docket No. 4952PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
■PLUMMER, J.
Reclamation District No. 108, hereinafter referred to as “Reclamation District”, is now, and was at all the times hereinafter mentioned, a reclamation district organized and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the state of California, situate in the counties of Colusa and Yolo, the greater portion of which is situate in the county of Colusa. The respondent California Gibson is, and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was, the duly elected, qualified and acting treasurer of the county of Colusa, and as such, custodian of the bond fund of Reclamation District No. 108; that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rohwer v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Shuttuck v. SmithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. FlaccoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Board of Education v. Common CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Spurrier v. NeumillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- River Farms Co. v. California GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Headid v. RodmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1970
- Selby v. Oakdale Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Bank of Hawaii v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Kimball v. Hastings Tract Reclamation District No. 2060California Court of Appeal · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.