Legal Opinion

Holderbaum v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 29, 1927No. 7671. [fn*]PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

Appellee is a body corporate, organized and operating as a water improvement district under the provisions of the statutes now embraced in chapter 2, Title 128, R. S. 1925. Appellants, husband and wife, own and reside upon a farm situated within and forming a part of the district. One of appellee’s irrigation canals ¡runs along the east and south boundaries of appellants’ farm. It was alleged by appellants in the court below that appellee, through its officers and agents, so carelessly constructed the canal and so negligently maintains and operates it that water constantly seeps through its…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Galveston v. PosnainskyTexas Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Fort Worth Improvement District No. 1 v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1913
  3. McCammon & Lang Lumber Co. v. Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1911
  4. City of Ysleta v. BabbittCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
  5. Barnhart v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 4Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. HolderbaumTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
  2. Nueces County Drainage & Conservation District No. 2 v. BevlyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975
  3. Stephenson v. Pioneer Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Scott v. City of RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
  5. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. WhittingtonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

10 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