Legal Opinion

Irrigated Valleys Land Co. v. Altman

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 24, 1922No. Civ. No. 2419PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action for the purpose of securing a decree perpetually enjoining and restraining the defendants from using a certain ditch, known as the “Hungry Hollow Ditch” and the right of way over which said ditch traverses and which is the property of the plaintiff. The alleged wrongful use of said ditch by the defendants consists of the “diversion of water from said ditch by and through an irrigating canal which connected with the same and extended to a certain piece of real property owned by defendant, Schaupp, and leased by the defendant, Altman. ’ ’ Said real property…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Stoner v. ZuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Hesperia Land & Water Co. v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Flickinger v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Woods Lumber Co. v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Central Lumber Co. v. KelterIllinois Supreme Court · 1903

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Cooke v. RamponiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Kerr Land & Timber Co. v. EmmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  3. Dool v. First Nat'l Bank of CalexicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Mountain Home Irrigation District v. DuffyIdaho Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Chapman v. Sky L'Onda Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API