Legal Opinion

Dimmock v. City of New London

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 9, 1968PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouse, J.

The plaintiffs, who are riparian owners along the course of Harris Brook and one of its source streams known as Fraser Brook, in Salem, instituted this action to enjoin the defendant from diverting water from a branch of Fraser Brook and to recover damages for the diversion already made.

The finding, with the addition of such admitted and undisputed facts as the plaintiffs are entitled to have included, establishes the following facts material to the issues on this appeal: The defendant, the city of New London, owns a large tract of land east of route 85 and south of Forsythe Boad in Salem. On…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Collens v. New Canaan Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  2. Brockett v. JensenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
  3. Parker v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
  4. Adams v. Greenwich Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  5. Hammerberg v. LeinertSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  2. City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  3. Moore v. SerafinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  4. Kelly v. IvlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  5. Riccio v. AbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979

24 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