Graham v. Hoyl
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Day
Plaintiffs in error were the defendants in the trial court, and by order of the court were enjoined from impounding water from Beaver Creek for use in placer mining operations.
The defendants in error as plaintiffs in the trial court instituted the suit, claiming adjudicated priorities in Water District No. 6 for storage and reservoir rights dating back to 1894, which, it was claimed, were being interfered with.
We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court.
The hearing before the trial court was for the issuance of a “temporary injunction” on the representation that an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crosby v. WatsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
- Spickerman v. SproulSupreme Court of Colorado · 1958
- Carroll v. StancatoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rathke v. MacFarlaneSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
- Atmel Corp. v. VITESEE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2001
- American Television & Communications Corp. v. ManningColorado Court of Appeals · 1982
- Anderson v. Applewood Water Ass'n, IncColorado Court of Appeals · 2016
- Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School DistrictColorado Court of Appeals · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.