Legal Opinion

Stevinson v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1912No. Sac. No. 1774PublishedCited by 16 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. M. L. Short, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A rehearing was granted in this case in order that we might further consider the contentions of appellant, that in addition to the water to which it was entitled, by-prescription, it had the right to take a further quantity because plaintiff by his laches had lost the right to object to such diversion, and that plaintiff, by permitting large numbers of irrigators to use the water in. excess of 760 cubic feet per second, without any protest on his part, had placed himself in a position wherein he was not entitled to the harsh remedy of injunction, but should be relegated to his…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. Portland & Kennebec RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Barton v. Riverside Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Brownrigg v. DefreesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Collier v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956

11 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