Legal Opinion

Lytle Creek Water Co. v. Perdew

California Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1884No. 9,244PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.

The court rendered the following decision:—

“First—That at various times since about the year 1854, a large number of persons owning and occupying separate tracts of land, consisting of farms on the Rancho of San Bernardino, and other farms immediately to the north and west of said rancho, and residence lots and gardens, orchards, and vineyards, in the town of San Bernardino, diverted and appropriated the waters of Lytle Creek by means of water ditches and dams, and conducted such waters upon their said lands for irrigating the same, and for household and domestic use thereon.
“Such…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Settembre v. PutnamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Carpentier v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Williams v. SuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Waring v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  5. Van Bokkelen v. CookU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1879

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
  2. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  3. Snow v. AbalosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Orange County Water District v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Johnston v. Little Horse Creek Irrigating Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1904

8 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