Legal Opinion

Zimmerman v. Hinderlider

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 18, 1939No. 14,535PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Knous

This is an action for damages brought October 23, 1935, by plaintiff, plaintiff in error here, against the state engineer, deputy state engineer, and water commissioner of district 3, division 1. Plaintiff alleged that such damages accrued to her by reason of a series of repeated unlawful acts of the defendant water officials in connection with her reservoir and the water rights decreed thereto. Although not disclosed by the record before us, it would appear from the files in Zimmerman v. Hinderlider, 102 Colo. 172, 78 P. (2d) 351, and statements in the briefs, that preliminarily upon motion…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Burkett v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Middelkamp v. Bessemer Irrigating Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  3. Tucker v. ParksSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
  4. City of Pueblo v. GriffinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
  5. Barquin v. Hall Oil Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Big O Tire Dealers, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
  2. Skyland Metropolitan District v. Mountain West Enterprise, LLCColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Fountain v. MojoColorado Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Ezell v. GravesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1990
  5. Doyle v. LinnColorado Court of Appeals · 1975

7 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