Legal Opinion

Eckel v. Springfield Tunnel & Development Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 15, 1927No. Docket No. 3355PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.

The plaintiff brought this. action to enjoin the interference by defendant with the natural flow of water from a certain spring and for damages caused by past interference therewith. The facts hereinafter stated appear from the findings.

The plaintiff is the owner of 87% acres of land, through which Mormon Creek flows, all of such lands being riparian to the stream. The defendant is the owner of a tract of land adjoining plaintiff’s land on the north and containing approximately 1,000 acres. Patents were issued by the United States more than fifty years ago for all of said lands of both…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. City of San Bernardino v. City of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. O'Leary v. HerbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Hinton v. LittleIdaho Supreme Court · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API