Legal Opinion
Cowell v. Armstrong
California Supreme Court
Decided August 28, 1930No. Docket No. Sac. 4341PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of nonsuit in favor of certain defendants appearing and from a portion of a default judgment against •defendants not appearing.
The action was brought against more than two hundred defendants to establish alleged conflicting riparian rights in the waters of Putah Creek and for an injunction. Putah Creek has its headwaters in Lake County and thence flows through Napa County and forms a portion of the boundary line between Yolo County and Solano County. By their second amended and supplemental complaint the plaintiffs allege that they…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Alta Land & Water Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Hudson v. DaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Deetz v. CarterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1952
- United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, and Cross-Appellants, State of California, IntervenerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Gonzales v. ArbelbideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.