Provo Bench Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Tanner
Supreme Court of the United States
error to the supreme court of THE STATE OF UTAH. The facts, which involve the validity under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Utah, and judgment of the Supreme Court of that' State, regarding rights to flow waters and construct irrigation ditches, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Justice McReynolds,
by direction of the court..
Plaintiffs in error, having acquired easements and rights of way over certain lands in the State of Utah, con structed thereon connecting canals to convey water intended for irrigation purposes. Relying upon the provisions of a statute of that State (Compiled Laws, 1907, § 1288 x 22) copied in the margin, 1 the validity of which is not contested (Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361), defendant in error, Tanner, instituted the original proceeding, praying for permission ■ to increase the carrying capacity of the canals, that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1)Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Clark v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Tanner v. Provo Bench Canal & Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1911
3Cited by12 opinions
- Utah State Road Commission v. FribergUtah Supreme Court · 1984
- Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
- Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1980
- Simonson v. McDonaldMontana Supreme Court · 1957
- United States v. CaldwellUtah Supreme Court · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.