Legal Opinion
Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 21, 1931No. Docket No. 4264PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON (R. L.), J.
This cause is presented to this court upon rehearing.
The appeal is from a judgment which was entered upon the rendering of a verdict for $20,000 as damages for the diversion of the water of Fall River from land which was deemed to be riparian thereto. The defendant, which is a hydroelectric power company, was also enjoined from using the water of that river until the judgment for damages is satisfied. The respondents, husband and wife, for convenience will be referred to as plaintiff.
Fall River empties into Pit River in the northeastern portion of Shasta County. The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Albaugh v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Rilovich v. RaymondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1934
- Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1932
- Mt. Shasta Power Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.