Legal Opinion

Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Co. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1884No. 9,402PublishedCited by 50 opinions

Application for a writ of review. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.

The return to the writ of review shows that in the action, County of Yuba v. Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Company, an injunction was issued, esc parte, commanding the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, etc., until the further order of the court, “to desist and refrain from depositing or suffering to flow into the channel or bed of the Yuba River, or into the channel or bed of Sucker Flat Ravine, or into the tributary streams, gulches, or ravines which lead into said river or ravine, any of the tailings from defendant’s hydraulic mines, or the earth, sand, clay, sediment,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Goodman v. SimondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
  2. Ex parte PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Palmer v. Mayor of New YorkThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
  4. Ex parte CottrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Rowe v. Table Mountain Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1858

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Bridges v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Foley v. FoleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Imperial Water Co. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Freeman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

45 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