East Jordan Irrigation Co. v. Morgan
Utah Supreme Court
1DissentDurham, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that a shareholder in a mutual water corporation does not have the right to change his or her point of diversion because the water rights are owned by the company rather than the shareholder. In so holding, the majority makes a number of crucial errors. First, the majority improperly treats water like an ordinary corporate asset and assumes that mutual water companies are the same as other corporations. The majority further ignores long-established Utah case law holding that mutual water corporations may not interfere with a shareholder’s use of his…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bonham v. MorganUtah Supreme Court · 1989
- Wadsworth Ditch Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Colorado · 1907
- Miller v. Imperial Water Co. No. 8California Supreme Court · 1909
- Genola Town v. Santaquin CityUtah Supreme Court · 1938
- Consolidated Peoples Ditch Co. v. Foothill Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.