Churchill v. Rose
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, C.
The plaintiff recovered judgment in the court below for the sum of one thousand dollars damages for the diversion of waters of Butte Creek from the plaintiff’s lands; and for an injunction perpetually enjoining the defendant from diverting the waters of the creek from the creek or its tributaries. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying her motion for new trial.
The title of the plaintiff to the use of the waters of Butte Creek, to the extent of one thousand inches, is not disputed; and it is found that during each of the years 1898 and 1899— while there was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Reno v. RichardsIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Bieser v. StoddardSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
- L. Mini Estate Co. v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Roberts v. KraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Forrester v. Rock Island Oil & Refining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.