Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County and from an order refusing- a new trial. F. E. Densmore, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The object of the plaintiffs’ action was to obtain a decree declaring that they were each entitled to receive from The Fairview Land and Water Company sufficient water upon their respective tracts of land for irrigation and domestic use thereon, upon payment of charges sufficient to defray the expenses of keeping up the water system and distributing the water, and to enjoin The Fairview Company from demanding or collecting charges for the delivery of such water in excess of the sum reasonably…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Thayer v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Allen v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Orange County Water District v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Spring Valley Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Carlson v. LindauerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.