McNaughton v. Eaton
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
WADE, Justice.
The defendants use the waters of McNaughton Gulch below plaintiffs’ land, near Vernal, Utah. They appeal from a judgment holding that the waters in question are percolating waters and a part of plaintiffs’ soil and therefore not public waters nor subject to appropriation. The court further held that plaintiffs’ right to such waters is not subject to any control nor limited to a beneficial use. Defendants contend that these are public waters and subject to appropriation and that the right to the use thereof is limited to the amount required to satisfy the reasonable and efficient…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Horne v. Utah Oil Refining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
- Wrathall v. JohnsonUtah Supreme Court · 1935
- Little Cottonwood Water Co. v. KimballUtah Supreme Court · 1930
- Eardley v. TerryUtah Supreme Court · 1938
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Green River Canal Co. v. ThaynUtah Supreme Court · 2003
- East Bench Irr. Co. v. Deseret Irr. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1954
- Butler, Crockett & Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2004
- Salt Lake City v. Silver Fork Pipeline Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2000
- Little Cottonwood Water Co. v. Sandy CityUtah Supreme Court · 1953
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.