Lower Tule River Ditch Co. v. Angiola Water Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The court found, in effect, that plaintiff was seized of a prior right, as against the defendant, to divert from Tule River, a stream of the water thereof amounting to a continuous flow of twenty-three feet per second, and gave judgment enjoining the defendant from interfering therewith. Neither party is a riparian owner on the stream, both claiming solely by appropriation and use. The claim of defendant is based on a notice of appropriation under the code, posted on August…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Simmons v. WintersOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- De Necochea v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Butte Canal & Ditch Co. v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- McCall v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1902
- McDonald v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bailey v. TintingerMontana Supreme Court · 1912
- Roy Hunter v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Fullerton v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. GulleyNevada Supreme Court · 1931
- Pleasant Valley Canal Co. v. BorrorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.