Legal Opinion
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Department of Public Works
California Supreme Court
Decided September 11, 1934No. S. F. 15056PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
Proceeding in mandamus. The issue is presented by the petition, answer thereto and demurrer to the answer. Petitioner is a public corporation and respondents are the statutory successors of the commission created by the Water Commission Act (Stats. 1913, p. 1012, as amended; Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1931, vol. 3, p. 4998, Act 9091; Pol. Code, secs. 348-359b, 363-363gg).
Acting upon information which would justify the preferment of irrigation and domestic uses over power use of the unappropriated waters of the Mokelumne River, respondents inserted in the permit issued to petitioner for the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Union Bridge Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Sinking-Fund CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Bank of Italy v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Wulzen v. Bd. of Supervisors of City & Cty of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Laisne v. California State Board of OptometryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- City of Los Angeles v. City of San FernandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.