Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.
California Supreme Court
i The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles A. Shurtleff, and H. C. Wyckoff, for Appellants. H. A. Van C. Torchiana, and W. P. Netherton, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The first trial of this action, which involves the rights of the parties to the waters of Pinto Lake, in Santa Cruz County, resulted in a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs had a prior right to take as much water as they could beneficially use upon their land, not exceeding a continuous flow of two hundred and fifty miner’s inches. Upon an appeal to this court, the judgment was reversed for reasons stated in an opinion reported in 150 Cal., at page 520, [89 Pac. 338]. The facts giving rise to the controversy, and the relative situations of the parties and their property are set forth in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- De Necochea v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Allen v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Wells v. MantesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Watterson v. SaldunbehereCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Roy Hunter v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- United Paper Board Co. v. Iroquois Pulp & Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Haight v. CostanichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Fullerton v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Town of Antioch v. Williams Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.