Legal Opinion

Cave v. Tyler

California Supreme Court

Decided August 7, 1901No. L.A. No. 740PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.

—This is an action to quiet plaintiffs’ title to the right to the use, and a diversion through a ditch called the Mill Creek Zanja, of all the water of a natural stream called Mill Creek, and its tributaries. Judgment went for plaintiffs, and defendant Hannah S. Skinner appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

Under our views of the case, it is not necessary to examine all of the questions presented, and the facts essential to the point of the decision may be briefly stated.

Mountain Home Creek is a tributary of Mill Creek, and Snow Creek is a tributary of Mountain Home Creek.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Hargrave v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. City of Santa Cruz v. EnrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Healy v. WoodruffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Hudson v. DaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Pleasant Valley Canal Co. v. BorrorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
  5. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. WorswickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

8 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