Legal Opinion

Whitcomb v. Murphy

Montana Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1933No. 7,044PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Angstman

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order giving directions to defendant as water commissioner, in proceedings instituted by plaintiff under section 7150, Revised Codes 1921, as amended by Chapter 125, Laws of 1925.

On plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s answer, and after the issuance of an order to show cause directed to the defendant, evidence was introduced at a hearing from which it appears that plaintiff is the owner of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 34, and the west half of the southwest quarter of section 35, township 20 north, range 7 west, and other lands…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. MacLay v. Missoula Irrigation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Harris v. ChapmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Kimball v. TrippCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Quigley v. McIntoshMontana Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. PetersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1948
  3. State Ex Rel. McKnight v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1941
  4. State Ex Rel. Reeder v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Sain v. Montana Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936

2 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