Legal Opinion

McKinley Bros. v. McCauley

California Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 1932No. Docket No. Sac. 4494PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Appeal by defendant James B. McCauley from a judgment in an action which is essentially one to quiet plaintiff’s title to the beneficial use of the waters of Putah Creek in Lake County. The judgment decreed that the plaintiff, McKinley Brothers, a corporation owning and operating a flourmill and electric power plant near the town of Middletown, is the owner of and entitled to the possession for beneficial uses of all of the flow in the natural channel of said creek up to 500 miner’s inches measured under a four-inch pressure at its diversion points on Anderson and English Creeks, which creeks…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ex parte HollisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  2. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. WorswickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Koerber v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. Rindge v. Crags Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Moakley v. Los Angeles Pacific Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Groves v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  2. In Re Water of Hallett Creek Stream SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Williams v. BinkleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Elliott v. BertschCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. State v. GorhamUtah Supreme Court · 1937

7 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