Peterson v. City of Santa Rosa
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from part of a judgment of the Superior Court of' Sonoma County granting a perpetual injunction. William R Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
SEARLS, C.
This is an action to restrain the defendant, a municipal corporation, from polluting the waters of Santa Rosa creek by discharging or permitting to run into said stream, above the lands of the plaintiff, any of the sewage from the city of Santa Rosa, the defendant herein, and to recover damages for past injury.
Plaintiff had judgment for one dollar damages and a perpetual injunction restraining defendant as prayed in her complaint. Defendant appeals from so much of the decree as awards an injunction. The cause comes up on the judgment-roll.
The record shows that the cause was tried…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woollen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1863
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Curtis v. WinslowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
3Cited by28 opinions
- Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Wright v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Phillips v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Frost v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Attorney General ex rel. Township of Wyoming v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.