Lukrawka v. Spring Valley Water Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Charles Monroe, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
Petitioners brought this proceeding in maivdamus in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco to compel the respondent to extend its water mains and supply petitioners with water. The superior court sus tained a demurrer to an amended petition of petitioners without leave to them to further amend and entered judgment in favor of respondent. Petitioners appealed from that judgment and it was affirmed by the district court of appeal. A further hearing was granted in this court.
The following are the principal facts alleged and relied on in the petition: The petitioners are all…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Russell v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- People Ex Rel. Woodhaven Gas Light Co. v. DeehanNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Haugen v. Albina Light & Water Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Reid Development Corp. v. Township of Parsippany-Troy HillsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
- Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Wilson & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Citizens Suburban Co. v. Rosemont Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. R.R. Comm'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.