Legal Opinion

Kent v. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1943No. 3382PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Orr, C. J.:

Respondent, feeling himself aggrieved by a decision of the state engineer of the State of Nevada affecting his interests and relating to what the respondent alleged to be the administration of determined rights found in the so-called Bartlett Decree, which said decree is a final determination of the relative rights of the water users of the Humboldt River stream system, instituted an action against the said state engineer, in the district court of Humboldt County, under section 75 of the water law of the State of Nevada, being section 7961 N. C. L. Later the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Sharkey v. City of ButteMontana Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Arthur Irrigation Co. v. StrayerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  3. Sharp v. McColmSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  4. Carpenter v. Sixth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of HumboldtNevada Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Pomona Land & Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCormick v. Sixth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Meridian Ditch Co. v. Koosharem Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Stone v. StoneDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API