Churchill v. Flournoy
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Lassen County granting a new trial. E. A. Kelley, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to abate a certain dam and enjoin the diversion of water, with damages. As conclusion of law, the court found that plaintiff was entitled to take nothing by the action and that defendants were entitled to judgment for their costs, and judgment was accordingly entered. The court made an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, from which defendants appeal.
1. Appellants contend that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion upon a record showing laches by the moving party in making his application.
We do not think it necessary to state the facts presented…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Herriman v. MenziesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Riverside Water Co. v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Condee v. GygerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Yarrow v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Pollitz v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Gray v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.