Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Norviel
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
CHAMBERS, Superior Judge
(After stating the facts as above). — The record upon this appeal presents but a single question: Does the amended complaint state a cause of action? The appellees insist that it does not, and base their argument upon five propositions, stated as follows:(1) The amended complaint shows upon its face that there was no application for a permit to make an appropriation of water, but it was for the transfer of the point of diversion of, and the more efficient and economic use of, water belonging to the applicant, and that the permit was issued in accordance therewith, and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Montrose Canal Co. v. Loutsenhizer Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1896
- Montezuma Canal Co. v. Smithville Canal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Thorpe v. Tenem Ditch Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1889
- Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Lockwood v. FreemanIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Beach v. Superior Court of Apache CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1946
- Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. PetersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1945
- Funk v. BartholetWashington Supreme Court · 1930
- Hurley v. AbbottDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1966