Legal Opinion

Wayt v. Buerkel

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 25, 1994No. CV 91-06-34255; CA A78430PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Defendant Buerkel appeals a declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff Wayt. He assigns error to the trial court’s holding that plaintiff was entitled to a pro rata share of water pursuant to an irrigation contract and addendum to that contract, and that an appurtenant easement by implication exists in favor of plaintiffs property for the delivery of the water through a pipeline on defendant’s property.

In 1972, the Acala Ginning Company (Acala) entered into a contract (Wolf Creek Irrigation Contract) with the Powder Valley Water Control District (District) to buy 1,200 acre feet 2 of water…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re Water Rights of Deschutes RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Cheney v. MuellerOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Dressler v. IsaacsOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Rose Et Ux. v. Denn Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
  5. LUCKEY ET UX v. DeatsmanOregon Supreme Court · 1959

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bloomfield v. WeaklandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  2. Pfaendler v. BruceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Generaux v. DobynsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. Wayt v. BuerkelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. F.N. Realty Services, Inc. v. Oregon Shores Recreational Club, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

1 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