Legal Opinion

Hohenshell v. South Riverside Land & Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1900No. L.A. No. 586PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

Judgment was rendered in the lower court against the defendant, requiring it to abate (to a depth of two and seven-tenths feet from the top) a dam placed by it in the outlet of Elsinore lake, in Riverside county, whereby plaintiff’s land was overflowed; and enjoining it from maintaining in said outlet that or any other obstruction.

The appeal is on the judgment-roll; and the points of error assigned are: 1. That the theory of the complaint is at variance with the case as made by the findings; 2. That the findings are defective in failing to show the extent of the plaintiff’s right;…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kidder v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of YubaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  2. Jennings v. JordanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  3. Keeler v. HakyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. William C. Hoyt, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
  5. Klumpke v. HenleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914

2 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