Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Plaintiffs are the owners of three hundred and twenty acres of land fronting on Pinto Lake, the plaintiff Flora being the owner of the fee, and the other plaintiff the owner of á leasehold interest. They claim rights in the waters of the lake as riparian proprietors thereon, and the plaintiff S. J. Duckworth also claims a right by appropriation to take therefrom a quantity of water equal to a continuous flow of two hundred and fifty miners’ inches under a four-inch pressure. The lake contains an area of about seventy acres. The defendant Watsonville Water and Light Company owns sixty-five…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Fuller.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Fitch v. BunchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. City of AlhambraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Holland v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Haight v. CostanichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.