Legal Opinion

Fitzstephens v. WATSON

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1959PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a decree permanently enjoining the defendants from interfering with the flow of water in a pipeline running from a reservoir on defendants’ land to the land of the plaintiff. The decree also enjoined the defendants from violating the terms of an “Easement Deed” in which the defendants covenanted to maintain the water system through which the water was conveyed to the grantee’s land. The plaintiff’s prayer for damages resulting from the alleged conduct of the defendants in cutting off plaintiff’s water supply was denied.

We shall refer to the defendants’…

2Cases cited66 opinions

  1. Neponsit Property Owners' Ass'n v. Emigrant Industrial Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
  2. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. McKinneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  5. Simmons v. WintersOregon Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Adaman Mutual Water Company, a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  2. Norden v. STATE, WATER RESOURCES DEPT.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Stoesser v. Shore Drive PartnershipWisconsin Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  5. Ebbe v. Senior Estates Golf and Country ClubCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

11 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