Legal Opinion

McClintock v. Hudson

California Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1903No. L.A. No. 1134PublishedCited by 25 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J.—

Judgment was given in the court below in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, and their motion having been denied, they now appeal from the order denying the same.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of a certain tract of land in Los Angeles County, and of all the subterranean water flowing therein and percolating through the soil thereof; that the plaintiff has made an excavation and constructed a tunnel, whereby a portion of the subterranean waters percolating through the soil is collected; that the excavation and the tunnel and the waters…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Los Angeles v. PomeroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Vineland Irrigation District v. Azusa Irrigating Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Hale v. McLeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
  4. Yarwood v. West Los Angeles Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
  2. City of San Bernardino v. City of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1910

20 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