Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Stoll v. MacPherson Duck Club, Ltd.

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided December 6, 1979No. 78-621Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSmith, Judge

In part I of its opinion the majority has directed that the trial court confirm the right of the plaintiffs to drain their lands through the Putnam Ditch. They have also required that the right of plaintiffs to enter upon defendants’ land for the purpose of maintaining the ditch be specifically set forth in the trial court’s decree. With this portion of the opinion I concur. In my view such a decree provides “a complete adjudication of the rights of all parties” under C.R.C.P. 105.

In part II, however, the majority directs the trial court to issue coercive orders prohibiting defendants, in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Page v. ClarkSupreme Court of Colorado · 1979
  2. City of Pueblo v. FlandersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1950
  3. Slide Mines, Inc. v. Left Hand Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API