Nahl v. Alta Irrigation District
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
In the month of March, 1911, the plaintiff’s land, embracing forty acres and situated in near, proximity to one of the water ditches of the defendant corporation, in Tulare County, this state, was inundated by water, and a large number of eucalyptus trees which he had planted and was cultivating on said land was thereby destroyed. In his complaint, the plaintiff charges that the damage to his land and trees was caused by the inundation of said land from water running in and through the corporation’s ditch, and that said overflowing of said water was entirely and directly due to the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Polack v. PiocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Chidester v. Consolidated Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
- Richardson v. KierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Proctor v. JenningsNevada Supreme Court · 1870
- Lisonbee v. Monroe Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Patterson v. Horsefly Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1937
- Stephenson v. Pioneer Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
- Ketcham v. Modesto Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Spurrier v. Mitchell Irrigation DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1930
- Oliver v. Pickett, Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.