Utah Power & Light Co. v. Richmond Irr. Co.
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
MOFFAT, District Judge.
In this proceeding the defendants Petersen were cited into court upon an order to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court for alleged violation of a decree of the court, wherein the waters of the Blacksmith Fork river, as well as other waters tributary to Bear river, were adjudicated. It appears that a decree was entered on February 21, 1922, wherein defendants Petersen were awarded 3 cubic feet of water per second out of Curtis creek, a tributary to Blacksmith Fork river, for the irrigation of 155 acres on the lands referred to as the Hardware…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Doremus v. RootWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Denver City Irrigation & Water Co. v. MiddaughSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
- People v. DiedrichIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- State v. BatesUtah Supreme Court · 1900
- Perrault v. Emporium Department Store Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Von Hake v. ThomasUtah Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. BartholomewUtah Supreme Court · 1934
- Peterson v. PetersonUtah Supreme Court · 1974
- Liquor Control Commission v. McGillisUtah Supreme Court · 1937
- De Yonge v. De YongeUtah Supreme Court · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.