Legal Opinion

Vaughan v. Kolb

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1929PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The right of the City of Baker to impound the waters appropriated by it in sufficient quantities for the present and future domestic use of its inhabitants is unquestioned in this suit. The city is not a necessary party to this suit and will be deemed a nominal party. The same may be said of the water-master.

The city has never abandoned any part of its water right. We are indebted to counsel for the city for an able brief. It appeal's from the complaint and seems to be agreed by all of the parties interested, that a part of the water of the city impounded in its reservoir is allowed to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Overall v. City of MadisonvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
  3. In Re Rights to Use of Waters of Silvies RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Ball v. KehlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Brosnan v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Bower v. Big Horn Canal Ass'n.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Strawberry Water Co. v. PaulsenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  3. Washington County Irrigation District v. TalboyIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Oliver v. Skinner and LodgeOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Coast Laundry, Inc. v. Lincoln CityCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1972

10 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