Legal Opinion

FAIRFIELD IRRIGATION CO. v. CARSON Et Ux.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1952No. 7670PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WADE, Justice.

From a judgment awarding plaintiff, Fairfield Irrigation Company, respondent here, the right to the use of the waters of two man-made artesian wells located on defendants’ land northwest of Fairfield, Utah, defendants Mr. and Mrs. Carson appeal. They raise the question of how the right to the use of artesian well water could be acquired between the effective date of c. 100, S. L. 1903, and cc. 104 and 105, S. L. 1935, and the effect on such rights of abandonment and ceasing to use such waters for the statutory period.

The Fairfield springs are the main source of water supply for…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Horne v. Utah Oil Refining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Adams v. Portage Irrigation Reservoir & Power Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Wrathall v. JohnsonUtah Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Deseret Live Stock Co. v. HooppianiaUtah Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Salt Lake City v. Silver Fork Pipeline Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Bullock v. TracyUtah Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Rocky Ford v. Kents LakeUtah Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Provo River Water Users' Ass'n v. MorganUtah Supreme Court · 1993
  5. PROVO RIVER WATER USERS'ASS'N v. MorganUtah Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API