Legal Opinion

City of Skiatook v. Carroll

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 25, 1933No. 21534PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Tulsa county by the defendant in an action in which the plaintiff recovered a money judgment for damage to real estate, which was caused by the diversion of water from its natural flow, causing it to flow upon the land of the plaintiff in an unnatural manner, to the damage of the plaintiff.

Prior to the construction of the pavement by the city, such water flowed over a natural course into a ravine. By the construction of the pavement, it was diveri ed from that course and was caused to flow in a different volume and over a different…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Uline v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. City of Ardmore v. OrrSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  3. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  4. Northup v. EakesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
  5. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. LaskeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  2. Town of Sentinel v. RileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  3. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. BellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  4. Texas Company v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API