Legal Opinion

Cocanougher v. Zeigler

Montana Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1941No. 8,124PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Erickson

This action is one in which the plaintiff seeks to eondemn a right-of-way through an irrigation diteh on defendant’s land for the purpose of conveying water for irrigation to land of the plaintiff adjoining that of the defendant. The diteh in question arises in a slough adjacent to the Big Hole River. The testimony is that it follows closely along the edge of the slough for some little distance and then passes through the defendant’s land, and that it is now used solely by the defendant. There is testimony that the ditch extends on to part of plain tiff’s land but that the ditch has been…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Co. v. Montana Union Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Marsh Mining Co. v. Inland Empire Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Monetaire Mining Co. v. Columbus Rexall Consol. Mines Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Amador Queen Mining Co. v. DewittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. State Ex Rel. Butte-Los Angeles Mining Co. v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Montana Talc Co. v. Cyprus Mines Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1987
  2. City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2016
  3. McTaggart v. Montana Power Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Montana Power Co. v. Burlington Northern RailroadMontana Supreme Court · 1995
  5. City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2016

4 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