Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. Blakesley

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1926No. 1392, 1397PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Bdume, Justice

(after making the foregoing statement of facts) :

1. An irrigation district, reclaiming, as it does, desert lands in the state, and accordingly conferring a benefit not alone upon the private individuals within the district, but also upon the people of the state as a whole, is a public, rather than a private corporation. Kinney on Irrigation and Water Bights, (2nd ed.) sec. 1404; 40 Cyc. 817. The duty, and the right to determine the propriety of having such districts established, rests with the legislature under its general powers to provide for the welfare of the state.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
  4. People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.California Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Martin v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1907

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation DistrictWyoming Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State Ex Rel. Goshen Irrigation District v. HuntWyoming Supreme Court · 1936
  3. V-1 Oil Co. v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1997
  4. War Memorial Hospital of District No. 1 v. Board of the County CommissionersWyoming Supreme Court · 1955
  5. James v. Bridger Valley Water Conservancy DistrictWyoming Supreme Court · 1965

7 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