Ripka v. Wansing
Missouri Court of Appeals
589 S.W.2d 333 (1979)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Sugar Creek flowed through two tracts of land where Albert and Darrell Ripka (plaintiffs) raised cattle. Between the Ripkas’ two tracts, the creek crossed land where Lawrence and John Wansing (defendants) grew corn and hay. When the Wansings pumped water from the creek to irrigate their crops, the Ripkas sued for an injunction, claiming the pumping had dropped the water level in the creek by at least one-third or 10 inches and had or would dry up the creek, harming their cattle business. The Wansings and other witnesses testified that the pumping had not noticeably dropped the water levels in the creek on the Ripkas’ land. The evidence showed enough water for cattle was always left at least in pools on the creek. The trial court denied injunctive relief on the ground that the Ripkas had not shown specific injury. The Ripkas appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong standard and should have instead determined whether the Wansings unreasonably interfered with the Ripkas’ riparian rights by substantially reducing the natural flow of water in the creek.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prewitt, 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.
