Twin Falls Land & Water Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
District Court, D. Idaho
1Opinion of the CourtJames Alger Fee, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
In order to clearly set out the issues, a preliminary inquiry into the public policy governing water rights in the state of Idaho and its effeet upon the two corporations involved and the shares which constitute the subject-matter of the contract must be made.
It is trite to observe that water is the lifeblood of the arid portion of the western states. So essential is it to existence that it is administered as a public trust. Constitutional and statutory provisions are set as wardens to guard the supply. Waste is criminal. On the other hand, beneficial use of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Bales v. Wichita Midland Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914
- Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co. v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- State v. Twin Falls Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Idaho Irrigation Co. v. PewIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. AhoDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1944
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Cahoon & Maxfield Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1994
- United States v. Warmsprings Irr. Dist.District Court, D. Oregon · 1940
- Pacific States Savings & Loan Corp. v. SchmittCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
- In re Summer Lake Irr. Dist.District Court, D. Oregon · 1940