Popham v. Holloron
Montana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Matthews
In June, 1927, the plaintiff, E. L. Popham, commenced action to have his rights in certain waters, alleged to have been appropriated for irrigation purposes decreed and the defendant Elizabeth Holloron, enjoined from interfering therewith. The complaint is in the usual form in water right cases except that it alleges the source of the water as “Holloron gulch.”
By answer, the defendant alleges that Holloron gulch “is a natural dry run or ravine in which, except during the season of the year when melting snows might cause water to flow therein, and is not a natural stream fed by springs; that…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- San Gabriel Valley Country Club v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Los Angeles Cemetery Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Willow Creek Irrigation Co. v. MichaelsonUtah Supreme Court · 1900
- The Weinberg Co. v. BixbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Clement v. State Reclamation BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Rock Creek Ditch & Flume Co. v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1933
- Bitterroot River Protective Ass'n v. Bitterroot Conservation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 2008
- Chowchilla Farms Inc. v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Wills v. MorrisMontana Supreme Court · 1935
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.