Legal Opinion

Silva v. Reclamation District No. 1001

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 29, 1919No. Civ. No. 1972PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are. stated in the Opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The action was to cancel and annul an assessment made for reclamation purposes. The district was organized in April, 1911, and it has. been in effective operation ever since. On the seventeenth day of July, 1911, the board of trustees of the district presented to the board of supervisors of Sutter County—in which county the greater portion of the lands of the district is situated, the residue being in Placer County—the original plans ;for reclamation. The usual proceedings were had and an assessment for $851,730 was levied upon the lands of the district and this was fully paid. This, however,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Drew v. RodgersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Jones v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Meyer v. Reclamation District No. 17California Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Shanklin v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Spurrier v. Reclamation District No. 17California Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Price v. Sixth District Agricultural Assn.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. In Re Rights to Use of Waters of Silvies RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Maberto v. WolfeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Solomont v. Polk Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Brenkwitz v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969

6 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