Legal Opinion · Dissent

Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1923Published

1Dissent

McCOUBT, J.,

Dissenting. — I dissent from tbe conclusions reached in tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Bean, that tbe rights of tbe Pacific Power and Light Company to tbe use of tbe waters of Hood Biver upon its riparian lands for tbe purpose of developing power for generating electricity for sale and distribution are subordinate and inferior to tbe claims asserted herein to tbe use of tbe waters of tbe stream for irrigating nonriparian lands, by claimants whose rights are based upon appropriations, followed by diversion of tbe waters of tbe stream for less than tbe period necessary to gain title by…

2Cases cited77 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Farm Investment Co. v. CarpenterWyoming Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Crawford Co. v. HathawayNebraska Supreme Court · 1903

72 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