Legal Opinion

Sternberger v. Seaton Mining Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 15, 1909No. 5702PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from Clear Creek District Court—Hon. A. H. DeFrance, Judge.'

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Campbell

The object of this action is to enjoin defendant from diverting the waters of South Clear Creek, a natural stream. Plaintiffs are owners of - land through which, they say, the waters of the stream have hitherto been accustomed to flow in their natural channel, until defendant, by its wrongful acts, diverted them into an artificial course. Before defendant’s rights, if any, accrued, plaintiffs’ grantor acquired by patent the lands from the United States government under the public land laws of congress, as of date July 1st, 1868, while our territorial form of government was in existence and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Kansas v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
  3. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Clark v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  5. Basey v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1875

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Nebraska v. WyomingSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Williams v. City of WichitaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1962
  4. In Re Water of Hallett Creek Stream SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. United States v. Utah Tower & Light Co.District Court, D. Utah · 1913

7 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