City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Byron Waters, C. C. Haskell, Ralph E. Swing and W. J. Guthrie, City Attorney, for Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent. Henry Goodcell, W. G. Irving, Miguel Estudillo and Samuel C. Wiel for Defendants, Appellants and Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Both parties have appealed from the judgment.
The city of San Bernardino is situated in what is known as the San Bernardino artesian basin, and the lands com prising it overlie a part of the subterranean water of said basin. The dispute in the case arises from the fact that both parties are taking such subterranean waters, the plaintiff taking them for the use of its inhabitants for domestic and other purposes, and the defendants taking them to be transported to the city of Riverside and the vicinity thereof for irrigation and domestic use, said region being entirely outside of the said basin…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- City of Pasadena v. City of AlhambraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- People v. ShirokowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.