Legal Opinion

Humboldt Lovelock Irrigation Light & Power Co. v. Smith

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided December 12, 1938No. H-194PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff, a Nevada corporation, filed its Bill of Complaint in this Court praying for a decree, in addition to other relief, granting an injunction against defendant interfering with certain of its alleged water rights in the Humboldt River in the State of Nevada. Jurisdiction of this Court is based on the alleged ground that Section 75 of the Water Law of the State of Nevada, Section 7961, Nevada Compiled Laws 1929, as construed by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, is in violation of Article 1, Section 10 and of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Ormsby County v. KearneyNevada Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of ElkoNevada Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Bergman v. KearneyDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1917
  5. Hamp v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. CappaertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
  2. State Engineer of Nevada v. South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone IndiansDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1999
  3. Humboldt Lovelock Irr. Light & Power Co. v. SmithDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1939
  4. United States v. Francis Leo Cappaert, State of Nevada Ex Rel, Roland D. Westergard, State Engineer, Intervenor. United States of America v. Francis Leo Cappaert, State of Nevada Ex Rel. Roland d.westergard, State Engineer, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API