McArthur v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
This case and four others are companion cases, each having been instituted by a different plaintiff against the defendant, the Mt. Shasta Power Corporation. In each case the plaintiff, as owner of land located on Pitt-ville Pool, sought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the diversion of the waters of Fall River some two and one-half miles above the confluence of that river with Pit River. The waters of Fall River, after their diversion, are conducted by defendant to its power house, situated about seven miles below the confluence of said two rivers, where after…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Turner v. the James Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1934
- Joerger v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Albaugh v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- McArthur v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1935