Bloss v. Rahilly
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SPENCE, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff sought by this action to have his rights determined in and to the natural flow of Duck Creek, sometimes known as Duck Slough, and in and to certain foreign waters flpwing in said creek; to obtain an injunction enjoining defendants from interfering with said rights; and to recover damages for such interference. Plaintiff had judgment upon a trial by the court sitting without a jury. Defendants appeal from said judgment.
Plaintiff is a lower riparian owner and defendants are upper riparian owners upon said Duck Creek which is a continuation of Mariposa Creek. This…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Adams v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Crane v. StevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Miller v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by34 opinions
- National Audubon Society v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Woodard v. MordecaiSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- People v. ShirokowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- People v. Bestline Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.