Legal Opinion
Kambish v. Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 4, 1960No. Civ. 18449PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDraper, J.
Defendant water conservation district appeals from judgment on jury verdict awarding plaintiff damages to land and personalty sustained when her property was flooded in 1955.
The purpose of defendant district is to store water during the rainy season and release it, during the dry months, into streams and percolation areas whence it seeps into the underground gravel strata underlying the Santa Clara Valley. It is not a flood control district.
The district maintains and operates Almadén Dam, constructed across Los Alamitos Creek about a mile upstream from plaintiff’s land. This dam is about 100…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bauer v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Hayashi v. Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Brandenburg v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Smith v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- McMahan's of Santa Monica v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Yee v. City of SausalitoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Key Sales Co. v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANYDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1968
- Tilton v. Reclamation District No. 800California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Van Zyl v. SpiegelbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.