Legal Opinion

Van Dyke v. Midnight Sun Mining & Ditch Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 9, 1910No. 1,698PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs in error are, and have been for a considerable period, the owners of certain placer mining claims on Big Hurrah creek, Alaska, so located as to cross that stream. They allege, and they gave evidence tending to show, that all the water of the creek is necessary for the proper working and developing of their claims. In 1902, after the location of these claims by the plaintiffs in error, the defendant in error posted notices near the creek and filed a claim in the recorder’s office of the district setting forth that it had appropriated all the water of Big…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Basey v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  3. Bear Lake & River Water Works & Irrigation Co. v. GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  4. Atchison v. PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  5. Broder v. Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1879

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Bridges v. Alaska Housing AuthorityAlaska Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Sheridan County Electric Co-Op., Inc. v. AnhaltMontana Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Balabanoff v. KelloggCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940

14 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