Legal Opinion

Mahaffey v. Carlson

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1924PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBudge, J.

This action was commenced by respondent against appellants to recover damages and for an injunction. The complaint sets forth three separate causes of action. There are, however, but two causes of action involved in this appeal, to which attention will be hereafter called, but no reference will be made to the third cause of action which is for injunctive relief for the reason that the same was abandoned.

From the record it appears that respondent’s predecessor in interest constructed a ditch for the purpose of conducting water and through which water was carried from Lemhi River to and upon…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Teller v. Bay and River Dredging Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  3. Fritcher v. KelleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Dennis v. Crocker-Huffman Land & Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1907
  5. Fritcher v. KelleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Casey v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Stephenson v. Pioneer Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Gates v. Pickett & Nelson Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Williams v. NeddoIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Call v. CoinerIdaho Supreme Court · 1926

1 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