Legal Opinion

Hershey v. Reclamation District No. 108

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1927No. Docket No. Sac. 3866PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Ella L. Hershey, one of the original plaintiffs, having died, Cornelia A. Hershey and Davidella Hershey, as administratrices of her estate, have been substituted in her place and stead. This is an attack made by plaintiffs upon assessment No. 5 levied upon land situate within Reclamation District No. 108, located in Yolo and Colusa Counties, the easterly boundary line of which is the Sacramento River. The district comprises approximately 60,000 acres of land. Said Reclamation District being within the Sacramento and San Joaquin drainage district, section 3455 of the Political Code, as amended…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. O'Dea v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Vickery v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. PetrieIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
  5. United States v. IdeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1921

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of MillbraeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  3. Jenner v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Arenstein v. California State Board of PharmacyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Mission Housing Development Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997

29 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