Legal Opinion

Kallenburg v. Long

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 14, 1919No. Civ. No. 2720PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBrittain, J.

The plaintiffs sued for damages caused by damming back surface waters and for injunction against further interference with their flow. The complaint was in two counts based upon different theories of the plaintiffs’ right to maintain the action. A general demurrer to the complaint and to each cause of • action was sustained as to. both causes of action, and upon plaintiff’s refusal to amend, judgment was entered for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal.

All the facts are set forth in the second count. The demurrer went to the root of the ease. If upon all the facts the plaintiffs are not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cheda v. BodkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Rudel v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Jersey Farm Co. v. Atlanta Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Owsley v. HamnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Johnson v. GustafsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Silveira v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Rosebrook v. UtzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Palvutzian v. TerkanianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

7 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