Legal Opinion
Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Holderbaum
Texas Commission of Appeals
Decided December 12, 1928No. 1078-4956PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNickels, J.
Plaintiff in error is an entity organized per terms of what is now chapter 2, tit. 128, R. S. 1925. It constructed and at the times in question owned and operated, irrigation canals, etc. Defendants in error own a tract of land within the territory of the district, bounded on the south and east by a canal (and on the west by a barrow pit) of plaintiff in error.
That canal was so constructed and maintained as that: (a) “The base of said canal is much higher than the land over which it is built and much higher” than the surface of the Holderbaum tract. - (b) At or in vicinity of the southeast…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gainesville, Henrietta & Western Railway Co. v. HallTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. FullerTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Fort Worth Improvement District No. 1 v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1913
- McCammon & Lang Lumber Co. v. Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1911
- G., C. & Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. EddinsTexas Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- City of Tyler v. LikesTexas Supreme Court · 1998
- Brazos River Authority v. City of GrahamTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- DuPuy v. City of WacoTexas Supreme Court · 1965
- City of Amarillo v. WareTexas Supreme Court · 1931
- Loyd v. ECO Resources, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1997
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.