Legal Opinion

Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1908No. S.F. No. 3890PublishedCited by 93 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover nine hundred and twenty dollars alleged to be due for water sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for the irrigation of four hundred acres of land, or at the rate of $2.30 per acre. The defendant admitted the receipt and use of the water on the land, and offered to allow judgment in favor of plaintiff for six hundred dollars, or at the rate of $1.50 per acre. The case depends on the question whether or not the plaintiff can charge more than $1.50 per acre per year for water for irrigation purposes. The court below held for the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Winslow v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & ByrneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. RowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Wilkins v. StidgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

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

3Cited by93 opinions

  1. State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Allen v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Leavitt v. Lassen Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  5. In Re Water Rights of Deschutes RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1929

88 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