Eikland v. Casey
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentWolverton, District Judge
' After a very careful study of the present controversy, I am not persuaded that the rule which requires a person owning land, and having occasion to change the channel of a stream running through it for the purpose of reclamation or improvement for his benefit, under all circumstances, in order to protect his neighbor against injury, to construct a channel of equal capacity with the old or natural channel, is the better one. The rule in this country would seem to be to the contrary by an overwhelming weight of judicial utterance.
I conceive the law to be that one desiring to change the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. ThillmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Sulphur Spring Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Price v. Oregon RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1906
- White River Log & Booming Co. v. NelsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Dahlgren v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.