Legal Opinion

Coulson v. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1924PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWm. B. Lee, J.

This is .an action for damages for the death of a bull. Appellant is a land owner on what is known as the Aberdeen-Springfield irrigation project, and respondent operates the canal which furnishes appellant and other farmers with water for the irrigation of their lands. Among its other canals and laterals, respondent operates what is known as the low line canal, which extends to and terminates upon the lands of appellant. From the point where the canal terminates, respondent uses what is known as a waste ditch for the purpose of conducting unused or waste water into Carter Creek, through…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bank of Commerce, Ltd. v. BaldwinIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Later v. HaywoodIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Schleiff v. McDonaldIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Stickney v. HanrahanIdaho Supreme Court · 1900
  5. York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Graham v. EnkingIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Coulsen v. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1929
  3. State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Helgeson Ex Rel. Helgeson v. PowellIdaho Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Wanke v. Ziebarth Const. Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1948

23 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