Luginbuhl v. Hammond
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSchottky, J.
Plaintiff above named commenced an action against defendants alleging that defendants without right had constructed and were maintaining an irrigation ditch, known as the Hammond Ditch, across a portion of plaintiff’s land, and prayed for an injunction enjoining defendants from maintaining said ditch and for damages resulting to plaintiff by reason of its construction.
Defendants filed an answer denying that said ditch was on plaintiff’s land and also setting up the defenses of estoppel and the statute of limitations. Defendants also filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet title to their…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ferris v. CooverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Hostetter v. Los Angeles Terminal Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Goss v. GolinskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Mendenhall v. ParisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Garnsey v. PostonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bloxham v. SaldingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Gibson v. CobbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Reid v. DunnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Bloxham v. SaldingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014