Legal Opinion

Ukhtomski v. Tioga Mutual Water Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 26, 1936No. Civ. 1615PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCOVEL, J., pro tem.

In 1929 and 1930 plaintiffs acquired under contract of sale approximately three acres of land in San Bernardino County, being part of a larger tract containing some six hundred acres known as the College Heights Tract. Plaintiffs’ land is covered with sage brush and rock and the value thereof was testified to by one J. B. Baile, Federal Land Bank appraiser of San Bernardino County, as being one hundred and fifty dollars per acre.

In 1932 defendant, Tioga Mutual Water Company, erected, at a cost of some seven thousand dollars, a concrete reservoir with the necessary outlets,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Newport v. Temescal Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  3. McKean v. Alliance Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Rothaermel v. AmerigeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. O. R. & N. Co. v. McDonaldOregon Supreme Court · 1910

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hirshfield v. SchwartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. Christensen v. TuckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  3. Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Nebel v. GuyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. Shoen v. ZacariasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

10 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