Legal Opinion

People v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 17, 1932No. Docket No. 4753PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

This action was brought to enjoin defendant from diverting water from the Sacramento River, through its irrigation canal, until such time as a fish screen is constructed and maintained, by defendant, so as to prevent the destruction of fish in consequence of such diversion.

Defendant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, nor of the subject of the action, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that several causes have been improperly united, also for nonjoinder of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Ex parte MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Holyoke Co. v. LymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  4. Michigan Trust Co. v. BronsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. People v. Monterey Fish Products Co.California Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Paterno v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  2. Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  3. Department of Fish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Takahashi v. Fish & Game CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Siskiyou County Farm Bureau v. Department of Fish & WildlifeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

13 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