Legal Opinion

Oliver v. Robnett

California Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1922No. Sac. No. 3243PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.

The plaintiff owns land through which Cottonwood Creek flows. He brought this action to quiet his title to a portion of the waters of this stream. Defendants Charley C. Larkin and Ellen Larkin and defendant Isaac Robnett also own riparian land on Cottonwood Creek, above plaintiff’s land. The defendants Dick own nonriparian land to which water has been diverted from Cottonwood Creek and Isaac Robnett also owns a tract of nonriparian land known as the “Home Place,” to which water has been diverted. The action thus involves both riparian rights and the prescriptive rights of nonriparian owners…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi-Tropic Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Hargrave v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. California Pastoral & Agriculture Co. v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Northern California Power Co. v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Heilbron v. 76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Pabst v. FinmandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Scott v. Fruit Growers Supply Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Joerger v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1932

16 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