Erickson v. Queen Valley Ranch Co.
California Court of Appeal
22 Cal.App.3d 578, 99 Cal. Rptr. 446 (1971)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
John Pedro obtained appropriative rights to water flowing from the Morris Creek in 1902. The creek begins in Nevada, and Pedro built a diversion dam approximately half a mile over the border into Nevada. Pedro also built a stone-lined diversion ditch, which conducted the entire flow of the creek over approximately two and a half miles to Pedro’s property in California. The flow of the creek just after the diversion dam was 2.585 cubic feet per second. The flow at Pedro’s property was only 0.424 cubic feet per second. The decrease in flow was due to evaporation and absorption into the desert soil. For several years, Pedro and his family used the water only for domestic use, like watering personal poultry and livestock and irrigating a family orchard. Queen Valley Ranch Co. (Queen Valley) (defendant) obtained appropriative permits from Nevada to transport up to five second/feet of Morris Creek by pipeline. The permit was expressly subordinated to any preexisting rights found by a court. Pedro’s property was eventually sold to Ernest Erickson (plaintiff). Queen Valley installed the pipeline, and, for a period of time, the flow to the Erickson property completely stopped. Erickson sued Queen Valley, seeking to quiet title to the water of Morris Creek. The trial court ruled in favor of Erickson, and Queen Valley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friedman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.