Legal Opinion

Crow Creek Irrigation District v. Crittenden

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1924No. 5,433PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holloway

This proceeding was instituted under the provisions of section 9872, Revised Codes, by filing with the district court an agreed statement of facts as follows: Plaintiff, an irrigation district organized under the laws of this state (Chap. 146, Laws of 1909), tendered to the defendant, county clerk and recorder of Broadwater county, certain papers for recording, which papers were in due form and were required to be recorded in that county, but defendant refused to record them unless paid in advance $104, the statutory fees which would be required of a private individual for like service; and…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Elmore v. Drainage CommissionersIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
  3. Morrison v. MoreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  4. Dean v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Hutton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Thaanum v. Bynum Irrigation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Buffalo Rapids Irrigation District v. ColleranMontana Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Outlook Irrigation District v. FelsWashington Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Newman v. Bitter Root Irrigation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1933
  5. State Ex Rel. Haley v. DilworthMontana Supreme Court · 1926

5 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