Legal Opinion
Madsen v. Bonneville Irr. Dist.
Utah Supreme Court
Decided June 8, 1925No. 4254PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGideon, C. J.
Appellant, plaintiff below, owns 1.25 acres of land located within the boundaries of the Bonneville irrigation district, respondent, defendant below.
Respondent is an irrigation district in Davis county, organized under authority of and pursuant to the provisions of chapter 68, Laws Utah 1919. No claim is made that the district was not organized in conformity with the provisions of that legislative act. There are no. disputed facts in the record.
It appears from the complaint that the district was organized in the year 1920; that at that time plaintiff’s predecessor owned 1.25 acres of land…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Myles Salt Co. v. Board of Comm'rs of Iberia and St. Mary Drainage Dist.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Martin v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Spring Street Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Kinsman v. Utah Gas & Coke Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Tintic Undine Mining Co. v. ErcanbrackUtah Supreme Court · 1938
- Wasatch Oil Refining Co. v. Wade, JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Sullivan v. BlakesleyWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Barker v. McKellarIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
- Argyle v. Bonneville Irr. Dist.Utah Supreme Court · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.