Legal Opinion

Baird v. Upper Canal Irrigation Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1927No. 4508PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHansen, J.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants for the purpose of securing an order requiring the defendants to make a connection between the pipe line of the plaintiff and the main line of the defendant irrigation company, so that the plaintiff can secure water through her pipe line to supply water for culinary and domestic use for 12 or 13 houses and premises that plaintiff has agreed to furnish with water. A general demurrer was filed to the plaintiffs complaint by the defendant Upper Canal Irrigation Company, which demurrer being overruled, the defendant Upper Canal Irrigation…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Everett v. JonesUtah Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Dillon Implement Co. v. CleavelandUtah Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Hillyard v. District Court of Cache CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Mitchell v. JensenUtah Supreme Court · 1905
  5. I. X. L. Stores Co. v. MoonUtah Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Salt Lake County v. Holliday Water Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Boyer Co. v. LignellUtah Supreme Court · 1977
  3. East Jordan Irrigation Co. v. MorganUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Swasey v. Rocky Point Ditch Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Dahl v. CayiasUtah Supreme Court · 1946

5 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