Legal Opinion
Kall v. Carruthers
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 3, 1922No. Civ. No. 2479PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, J., pro tem.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff against defendants for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining defendants from permitting water brought from defendants’ lands for the purpose of irrigating rice thereon to escape by percolation or otherwise upon the lands of plaintiff. Damages are also asked for the injury.
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff upon both issues, granting the injunction and assessing damages to the amount of sixteen hundred dollars.
We do not understand that appellant Carruthers (Mo-homed did not file a brief) seriously…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Thurston v. HancockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Gorham v. GrossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Pixley v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Wilson v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Highview North Apartments v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- North Little Rock Transportation Co. v. FinkbeinerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
- Nelson v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Madeline Curry, Etc. v. Fred Olsen Line, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.