People v. Shirokow
California Supreme Court
26 Cal. 3d 301, 162 Cal. Rptr. 30, 605 P.2d 859 (1980)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
Shirokow (defendant) owned land with an intermittent creek. Shirokow’s land never had a permit to appropriate water. Shirokow applied for a permit to appropriate water but withdrew the permit. The Water Resources Control Board (Board) insisted that Shirokow remove brush alongside the stream as a condition for the permit. Brush removal would allow Shirokow to salvage the required amount of water. Shirokow did not want to incur the cost of brush removal. Shirokow’s predecessor built a dam to capture the creek’s water. It was unclear whether Shirokow’s diversion disadvantaged a downstream project. The State (plaintiff) sought to enjoin Shirokow’s diversion on the basis that unauthorized diversions were considered a trespass and subject to injunction under the California Water Code.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
Dissent (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
