Legal Opinion

Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation District

California Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1939No. Sac. 5223PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The sole question for decision is that of the right of plaintiffs, appropriators of foreign waters, to restrain the producer of the foreign flow (defendant irrigation district) from increasing its beneficial use of such waters by-recapturing them within its boundaries, thus cutting off their escape and drainage in accustomed manner down a natural stream channel to plaintiffs’ land and point of diversion.

The trial court entered judgment decreeing that as against defendant, plaintiffs have the right to two cubic feet of water per second continuous flow in the creek over their land,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Rock Creek Ditch & Flume Co. v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Butte Canal & Ditch Co. v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  5. Crane v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  3. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  4. City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Brighton Ditch Co. v. City of EnglewoodSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951

27 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