Legal Opinion

Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Shurtliff

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1916No. 2793PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. C. W. Morse, Judge. Action by Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Company against Vincent Shurtliff and Mary E. Shurtliff, his wife. From tbe decree, defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtFrick, J.

This action was originally commenced by the plaintiff, hereinafter called “respondent,” against Vincent Shurtliff and his wife Mary E. Shurtliff, hereinafter called “appellants,” to restrain them from interfering with the water in a certain ditch. The complaint was afterwards amended, and all the water users (claiming water rights in, four certain ditches) were made parties to the action. All claimants thus came into court, and each one, including the appellants, set forth his claim to the use of water and the amount thereof in the several ditches aforesaid. It developed at the trial —…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Montrose Canal Co. v. Loutsenhizer Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1896
  2. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. Board of EducationUtah Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Little Walla Walla Irr. Co. v. Finis Irr. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Rosenthyne v. Matthews-McCulloch Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Albion-Idaho Land Co. v. Naf Irr. Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
  3. Hardy v. Beaver County Irr. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Shurtleff v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Stern v. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & SandyUtah Supreme Court · 2012

15 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