Legal Opinion

Allen v. Stowell

California Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1905No. L.A. No. 1300PublishedCited by 24 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiff granting a mandatory injunction compelling defendants to remove certain dams erected by defendants which caused the flow of water to be diverted from its natural course unto plaintiff’s land. The bill of exceptions does not pretend to bring up all the evidence, but, as stated in appellants’ brief, ■“is intended only to present two questions of law adopted •by the court and applied to the case.” These questions are: 1. Will the remedy of mandatory injunction lie where the •evidence is conflicting on the point at issue, unless there…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Rudel v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Johnson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Ojavan Investors, Inc. v. California Coastal Com.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Felsenthal v. WarringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Johnson v. KillianSupreme Court of Florida · 1946
  4. McCausland v. JarrellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API