Legal Opinion

Danley v. Merced Irrigation District

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 1925No. Docket No. 2931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.

The plaintiff, as a land owner in the defendant District, brought the above-entitled action to restrain the District and its board of directors from entering into an unlawful contract obligating the District to pay certain persons a total sum of more than a million dollars. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of defendants. The plaintiff appealed and the judgment was reversed with direction to overrule the demurrer, and the appellant was given judgment for his costs of appeal. (Danley v. Merced Irr. Dist., 66…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mudd v. MuddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Turner v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Danley v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Kelsey v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Portland Gasoline Co. v. Superior Marketing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Pratt v. Robert S. Odell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. City of El Campo v. South Texas Nat. Bank of San AntonioCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
  4. Kelsey v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. Kelsey v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API