Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Tomchak v. Harris

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1934No. 6099PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGivens, J.

Appellants are the owners of certain real property through which extends what is designated as the Pyke & Roscoe irrigation ditch or canal.

This action was instituted in 1932 by appellants to quiet title to a claimed prescriptive use in said ditch for carrying 160 inches of water, alleging that respondents had no right, title or interest in or to the ditch.

Respondents by answer and cross-complaint denied appellants’ rights and claimed an adverse prescriptive easement over appellants’ lands and exclusive ownership in the ditch in question alleging certain acts of interference by appellants in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Colegrove Water Co. v. City of HollywoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Coulsen v. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Hoyt v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Hays v. De AtleyMontana Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Pioneer Irrigation District v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. MussellIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Peoples v. FulkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. Peoples v. . FulkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Savage Lateral Ditch Water Users Ass'n v. PulleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Greyhound Corp. v. Lyman-Richey Sand & Gravel Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1955

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API