Still v. Palouse Irrigation & Power Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Whitman county, Canfield, J., entered August 8, 1910, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits without a jury, in an action to enjoin the obstruction of-the waters of a creek used for irrigation purposes.
1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.
It was sought in this suit to enjoin defendants from constructing and maintaining a dam across the mouth of Rock lake, for the purpose of utilizing the lake as a storage reservoir. The court below so decreed to the defendant Irrigation & Power Company, from which this appeal is taken.
Rock lake is a navigable body of water, about nine miles long and from one-half a mile to three miles wide. Its outlet is Rock creek, which flows westerly to a junction with Palouse river. Respondents are the owners of lands about ten miles west of Rock lake, through and across which. Rock creek flows. The…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1894
- Benton v. JohncoxWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Bernot v. MorrisonWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Seneca Consol. Gold Mines Co. v. Great Western Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Moore v. Cal. Oregon Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
- San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. WorswickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.