Legal Opinion

Ebell v. City of Baker

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1931PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, C. J.

The grounds upon which plaintiffs rely are shown to quite an extent in paragraph V of the complaint, which reads as follows:

“That more than sixty years ago plaintiff’s predecessor in interest went upon said Goodrich creek for the purpose of appropriating water and by means of dams, ditches and works, diverted and appropriated and for more than sixty years immediately prior to the month of August, 1929, plaintiffs and their said predecessor in interest had annually, openly, notoriously, adversely, continuously and without interruption and under a claim of right diverted for irrigation, stock…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Root v. WoolworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Ashmun v. NicholsOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Moore v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
  5. Gardner v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Goldman v. QuadratoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  2. City of Pendleton v. HolmanOregon Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Savoie v. Town of BourbonnaisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1950
  4. Manor v. StevensArizona Supreme Court · 1944
  5. In Re Waters of Walla Walla RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1933

7 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