Legal Opinion
Hume v. Fresno Irrigation District
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 12, 1937No. Civ. No. 1811PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
—Plaintiff, who owns 10% acres of land which is located immediately south of and adjacent to the Church or Fresno canal owned and operated by the defendant, instituted this action to recover damages from the defendant for injury alleged to have been caused to his land by seepage of water from said canal. Plaintiff’s complaint contains two causes of action. The first of these is based on the provisions of section 14 of article I of the state Constitution which prohibits the taking or damaging of private property for public use without payment of just compensation therefor. The second is…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Sutro Heights Land Co. v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- In Re Estate of HellierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Powers Farms, Inc. v. Consolidated Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Posz v. BurchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Shields v. Oxnard Harbor DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Fish v. Los Angeles Dodgers Baseball ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.