Legal Opinion

Austin v. Koch

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 22, 1961No. 19,477Published

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Doyle

Austin, to whom we will refer by name or as plaintiff, instituted this action to restrain the Kochs from interfering with the dam at Austin’s headgate. A temporary restraining order was issued without notice and subsequently a supplemental complaint alleging interference with plaintiff’s water supply was filed. Hearing was had on plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction which was denied. Following the plaintiff’s presentation of evidence the complaint was dismissed, and he is here by writ of error seeking reversal.

Testimony on behalf of the plaintiff was that he is the owner of the Gove…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dehaas v. BeneschSupreme Court of Colorado · 1947
  2. McClellan v. HurdleColorado Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Black v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 1953
  4. Saint v. GuerrerioSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
  5. Means v. PrattSupreme Court of Colorado · 1958

4 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