Mono Irrigation Company v. State
MONO IRRIGATION COMPANY (A Corporation), Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Appellants
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Mono County
- Trial judge
- W. S. Wells
- Outcome
- other — The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Pacific Power Company v. State of California, ante, p. 175.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court. — (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
THE COURT.
In the opinion rendered by this court November 24, 1916, the above-entitled cause and two others, Nos. 1460 and 1461, ante, p. 184, involving the same plaintiff and defendants, were considered and treated together.
It was mistakenly assumed that this ease, like the other two, related to unsurveyed land. It appears, however, that the land for which condemnation was sought herein was surveyed prior to the creation of the said forest reserve. This case ought, therefore, to have been grouped with Pacific Power Company (a Corporation), Plaintiff and Respondent, v. The State of California, John Doe, and Richard Roe, *806 Defendants and Appellants, ante, p. 175, decided at the same time.
For the reasons stated in the said latter opinion, the judgment rendered herein is set aside and the judgment rendered in the superior court is affirmed. The petition for rehearing is denied.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on January 22, 1917.