Supreme Court of California
83 P. 808 (1906)
Stoner (plaintiff) gave permission to Zucker (defendant) to enter upon Stoner’s land. Zucker constructed an irrigation ditch on Stoner’s land. Stoner claimed that while he had given Zucker permission to construct an irrigation ditch, he had not granted Zucker an easement. Stoner asserted that Zucker’s use of the land rested entirely upon his permission and that he had expressly revoked permission for Zucker to enter upon his land. Zucker continued to enter onto Stoner’s land in order to make repairs to the ditch. Zucker claimed to have spent more than $7,000 in the construction and maintenance of the ditch. Stoner filed suit seeking an injunction to prohibit Zucker from any further entry upon his land.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Henshaw, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.