Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the County Judge of San Francisco in a proceeding to condemn lands. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.
The plaintiffs are a corporation organized for the purpose of introducing pure fresh water into the City of San Francisco, and they instituted this special proceeding for the purpose of condemning a certain tract of land to the uses of the company, before the County Judge of the City and County of San Francisco. The parties interested in the property appeared, and on the twelfth day of August, 1862, the County Judge appointed commissioners to report the compensation to which the owners were entitled. The commissioners reported that the owners were entitled to the sum of seven hundred and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1832
- Eaton v. . AspinwallNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. WoodburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Cross v. Pinckneyville Mill Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1855
- McFarlan v. Triton InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1847
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- People v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Panama R. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.