Legal Opinion

Neff v. Imperial Irrigation District

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 2, 1956No. Civ. 5155PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.

Appellant seeks to recover damages for injury to his cotton crop. His complaint contains two causes of action, in the first of which he alleges that on or about June 16 and 22,1953, the defendant irrigation district, a political subdivision of the State of California, through its employees, sprayed with “2-4-D,” or other chemical, or otherwise treated the lands of the Filaree drain and land adjacent thereto in Imperial County; that these chemicals drifted, spread or were carried by air currents onto the lands which plaintiff was farming under lease and killed and injured the cotton plants…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bauer v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Gilmer v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Miller v. City of Palo AltoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Hume v. Fresno Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Customer Co. v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Bozaich v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  3. Sheffet v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Electro-Jet Tool & Manufacturing Co. v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Ambrosini v. Alisal Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

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