San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. E. N. Rector, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frank H. Short, P. G. Ostrander, and Edward P. Treadwell, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This is an action to condemn property for public use. The plaintiff has been diverting water from the San Joaquin River and carrying it to lands in the San Joaquin Valley to be used for irrigation. It desires to divert an additional flow of five hundred cubic feet per second from the river into its canals for the same public use. This suit is begun to condemn the interest of the defendants in this additional quantity of water. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved for a nonsuit and the same was granted by the court. Judgment was rendered thereon and from this judgment…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Gilmer v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Merced Security Savings Bank v. CasacciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- In re MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- People v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re HainesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Kissinger v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- People v. Ventura Refining Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
- Crocker v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.