Legal Opinion

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stanislaus County

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California

Decided September 18, 1911No. 14,554PublishedCited by 8 opinions

In Equity. Suit by the San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Company against the counties of Stanislaus, Merced, and Fresno, Cal.

Read the full summary

In Equity. Suit by the San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Company against the counties of Stanislaus, Merced, and Fresno, Cal. Action to enjoin the enforcement of certain water rates established by the boards of supervisors of the counties of Stanislaus, Merced, and Fresno, in the state of California, to be charged by the complainant as owner of certain canals and other works of a water distributing system for water furnished to consumers, and to declare said rates null and void on the ground that they and each of them are so ■ low as to deprive complainant of its property without…

1Opinion of the Court

MORROW, Circuit Judge.

The complainant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Nevada, and is the successor in interest of a corporation of substantially the same name organized under the laws of the state of California, which former corporation for more than 30 years next preceding the 14th day of June, 1905, was engaged in furnishing water for irrigation, sale, rental, and distribution to the inhabitants of the counties of Fresno, Merced, and Stanislaus. This former corporation on the 14th day of June, 1905, for a valuable consideration, transferred to the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  3. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  4. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. JasperSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  5. Basey v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1875

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Murphy v. KerrDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 1923
  2. California Pastoral & Agriculture Co. v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  3. National Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Chehalis CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Public Utilities Commission v. East Providence Water Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1927
  5. Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Service CommissionDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1921

3 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