Legal Opinion

Holbrook Irr. Dist. v. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co.

District Court, D. Colorado

Decided January 2, 1929No. 1676PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SYMES, District Judge.

This action was started in the district court for Bent county, Colo., and was removed here by reason of diversity of citizenship. Broadly speaking, it involves an adjudication of water rights between two ditches in different water districts of the same water division. It is equitable in nature, in that complainant asks its decreed priority be quieted, and adjudged senior to defendant’s decreed priority of an earlier date, and for general injunctive relief.

The matter is now before the court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the bill. This tests the sufficiency in law…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Barker v. HarveySupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. O'NEIL v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. McLean v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  4. Arthur Irrigation Co. v. StrayerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  5. Fort Lyon Canal Co. v. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1907

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. ThompsonDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1967
  2. Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District v. CarnieColorado Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. Peck v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Lobato v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
  5. Lobato v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002

1 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