Legal Opinion
Crum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 4, 1932No. Docket No. 4264PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON (R. L.), J.
This is an original motion which was made in this court to recall the remittitur and assess the costs to the appellant, on the theory that the action is in the nature of an inverse condemnation suit, and that the owners of the property which is involved therein, are entitled to costs under the provisions of article I, section 14, of the Constitution of California, independently of the outcome of the litigation.
This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, as the owners of land riparian to Fall River, to enjoin the defendant from diverting the water of that stream, and to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Collier v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- City of San Francisco v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Locklin v. City of LafayetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT v. EmerichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- City of Los Angeles v. RicardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Albaugh v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.