Legal Opinion

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 26, 1923No. Civ. No. 2345PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The history of this case is given by appellant in its opening brief as follows:

"Plaintiff, a public service canal company, having been enjoined from diverting more than a certain quantity of water in a suit brought by the owner of 2407.27 acres of swamp and overflow lands, riparian to the San Joaquin River, brought this proceeding in 1909 to acquire by condemnation the right to divert an additional 500 second-feet of water as against that land. On the first trial plaintiff was nonsuited, and on appeal the judgment of nonsuit was reversed (San Joaquin Kings River Canal Irr. Co. v.Stevinson,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. City of Santa Ana v. HarlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Chicago & Evanston Railroad v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
  3. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Marin Water & Power Co. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Harris v. Schuylkill R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  3. Seneca Consol. Gold Mines Co. v. Great Western Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Redwood City Elementary School District v. GregoireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API