Legal Opinion
Preston v. Herminghaus
California Supreme Court
Decided November 1, 1930No. Docket No. S.F. 13354PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This action was brought for the purpose of collecting attorneys’ fees alleged to be due plaintiffs from the defendants for legal services rendered by plaintiffs as attorneys at law in protecting defendants’ water rights. It appears that defendants, in the year 1924, were the owners of a tract of land containing about 18,000 acres in Fresno and Madera Counties and adjacent to the San Joaquin River, all but 1,000 acres being riparian thereto. These valuable water rights were in danger by reason of threatened and actual diversions and appropriations by the Southern California Edison…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- The "Idaho."Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Bennett v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Country of Plumas v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Co. of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Stuart v. PrestonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Provident Land Corp. v. BartlettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Kurland v. SimmonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.