Brewer v. Murphy
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAWSON, J.
After a bench trial, the court ruled that plaintiffs acquired prescriptive rights to take water from a spring on defendants’ property and to maintain a water line across defendants’ property for that purpose.
Defendants appeal, claiming the trial court’s decision was based on legal error and its findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Defendants contend that (1) post-1913 prescriptive rights to surface water are not recognized by California law, (2) substantial evidence does not support the finding that the water line was visible, open and notorious, (3)…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- People v. ShirokowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Jessup Farms v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Barstow v. Mojave Water AgencyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of SelmaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. 6354 Figarden General PartnershipCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Bichai v. DaVita, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2021
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.