Chrystal Springs Land & Water Co. v. Los Angeles
Chrystal Springs Land and Water Company v. Los Angeles
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
The Chief Justice :
■ Bill to quiet title to certain waters, water rights and works connected therewith. Bill dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and question of jurisdiction certified: Reported below, 82 Fed. Rep. 114; 76 Fed. Rep. 148.
Decree affirmed on authority of (1)
Phillips v. Mound City Association, 124 U. S. 605 ;
California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389, 395 ;
New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224 ;
Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408 ;
Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company, 168 U. S. 430 . (2)
Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522 ;
Florida Central Railroad v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321 ;
Gold Washing Company v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199 ;
Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454 ;
New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411, 424 .
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(claim that city is taking water in violation of treaty with Mexico and federal statute; held: no federal question is raised because the issue involves right under state or general law)
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.