Legal Opinion

Consolidated Irrigation District v. Crawshaw

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 20, 1933No. Docket No. 834PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

Respondent is an irrigation district, organized under the Irrigation District Act of the state of California, and engaged in delivering irrigating water through its canals to irrigable lands within its boundaries. This water is taken from the Kings River in Fresno County. Appellant is the owner of land in what is known as Island No. 3 Irrigation District, which was to be furnished with irrigating water through what is known as the Centerville and Kingsburg canal of respondent.

The predecessors in interest of the parties hereto entered into a contract, and a modification thereof, for furnishing…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hulen v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Lejeune v. General Petroleum Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Henderson v. CuttingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Locke v. KlunkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. PerrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Phillips v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Chamberlain v. AbelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Petersen v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Ballenger v. TillmanMontana Supreme Court · 1958

10 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