Nevada Irrigation District v. Keystone Copper Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, P. J.
On this appeal from a judgment quieting plaintiff district’s tax title against defendant corporation we hold that the former’s collector’s deeds did not intend to, and did not, divest said corporation's subsurface (mining) estate held in fee simple, this because the district did not intend to and did not levy taxes upon said mining rights; that, therefore, said corporation’s defense and cross-complaint were not barred by limitations under Water Code section 26304. The discussion below will develop the reasons impelling these conclusions.
Defendant, Keystone Copper Corporation (hereinafter…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cameron Estates, Inc. v. DeeringNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Smith v. WornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Ohio Oil Co. v. Wyoming AgencyWyoming Supreme Court · 1947
- Mitchell v. EspinosaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1952
- Lofstad v. MuraskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- California State Employees' Ass'n v. FlournoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Paul v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Buechner v. JonasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Red Bluff Developers v. County of TehamaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.