Miller & Lux Inc. v. James
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.
The defendants appeal upon the judgment-roll alone from a judgment whereby plaintiffs were adjudged entitled to a continuous flow of water from the San Joaquin River of 1,360 feet per second, diverted through plaintiffs’ main and outside canals, and superior to the riparian or other rights of the defendants. The same parties plaintiffs and defendants, or their predecessors, were plaintiffs and defendants, respectively, in prior litigation over their relative water rights in and to water flowing in the San Joaquin River, wherein it was adjudged that the respondents were entitled to a flow of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Newport v. Temescal Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Hopkins v. Southern California Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Jordan v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- United States v. Pan-American Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.