Ne. Sacramento Cty. Sanitation Dist. v. Northridge Park Cty. Water Dist. of Sacramento Cty.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, P. J.
The sole question on this appeal is whether a county sanitation district must compensate a county water district for the latter’s costs when required to relocate its water mains because of an extension of the sanitation district’s sewer facilities (both works being located beneath county roads). The trial court held that it must. We agree with that holding upon the principles of law and reasoning related below.
Northridge is a county water district created under the provisions of section 30000 et seq. of the Water Code. Its function is to provide water for domestic purposes to people within…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Grolemund v. CafferataCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- State of California v. Marin Municipal Water Dist.California Supreme Court · 1941
- McKay Jewelers, Inc. v. BowronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Riverside-Quindaro Bend Levee District v. Missouri American Water Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2003
- Southern California Gas Co. v. City of VernonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Damé Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- County of Orange v. Santa Margarita Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.