Legal Opinion

Mt. Shasta Power Corp. v. McArthur

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 24, 1930No. Docket No. 4034PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE THOMPSON (R. L.), Delivered the Opinion of the Court.

From a decree apportioning and quieting title in the respective parties to a quantity of river water for irrigation and power purposes, each party has appealed.

This action involves both prescriptive and riparian rights to the waters of Pit, Fall and Tule Bivers acquired for power purposes and for the benefit of lands adjacent to the confluence of these non-navigable streams.

The Pit River, which has its source in Goose Lake in northeastern California, flows in a southwesterly direction to its confluence with Fall River at a point…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jennison v. KirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  4. City of San Bernardino v. City of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  2. Albaugh v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Worden v. AlexanderMontana Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Moore v. Cal. Oregon Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Young v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

7 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