Cohen v. La Ca&209ada Land Etc. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. J. J. Scrivner, Alfred H. Cohen, and Lawler, Allen & Van Dyke, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This action was brought to restrain the-defendants from diverting and carrying away certain waters-of which plaintiff claimed to be the owner and for the recovery of damages for such diversion.
Judgment went for the defendants, and this appeal is taken therefrom, and also from an order denying the motion of plaintiff for a new trial.
The main question on this appeal is addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain certain findings of- the court.
Referring first to the general features of the case as disclosed by the evidence before referring particularly to the findings: It appears…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Gould v. EatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Southern California Investment Co. v. WilshireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- McClintock v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Meeker v. City of East OrangeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
- Horne v. Utah Oil Refining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
- E. Clemens Horst Co. v. New Blue Point Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.