Legal Opinion

Erwin v. Gage Canal Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 8, 1964No. Civ. 7353PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STONE, J. †

This action by four shareholders of defend ant corporation is the outgrowth of a prior action by the City of Riverside in eminent domain to condemn the assets of the defendant herein, a mutual water company. Defendant appeared in that action and by its answer alleged ownership of the water rights, diversion works, canals, pumping plants and other property used to deliver water to the company’s shareholders. Thereafter the directors of defendant and a shareholders’ committee worked out a proposed agreement to be used as the basis for a judgment in condemnation and thus obviate a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Stratton v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Consolidated Peoples Ditch Co. v. Foothill Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
  5. City of Glendale v. Crescenta Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bryant v. YellenSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Shipe v. Public Wholesale Water Supply District No. 25Supreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  3. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Cucamonga County Water District v. Southwest Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  5. People Ex Rel. Pub. Utilities Comm'n v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

9 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