CHRYSTAL SPRINGS LAND AND WATER COMPANY
v.
LOS ANGELES

U.S. | 1900-04-09
No. 41
177 U.S. 169 Supreme Court of the United States (1900) Caution
Also reported at: 44 L. Ed. 720 · 20 S. Ct. 573 · 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1782 · SCDB 1899-162
Cited by 24 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice :

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1961)
    …, 45 F. 283 (C. C. D. Kan. 1891); Davenport v. Cloverport, 72 F. 689 (D. C. D. Ky. 1896); Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co., 82 F. 257 (C. C. D. Pa. 1897); Crystal Springs Land & Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 76 F. 148 (C. C. S. D. Cal. 1896), aff’d, 177 U. S. 169 (see California Oil & Gas Co. v. Miller, 96 F. 12 (C. C. S. D. Cal. 1899)); Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Brumfield, 102 F. 7 (C. C. N. D. Ohio 1900), app. dism’d 22 S. Ct. 938; Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C. C. N. D. Cal. 1905); Farson v. City…
  • Chapman v. Houston Welf. Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1979)
    …(1904). The concept of state action relied upon in these opinions was rejected in Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278 (1913). See also Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313 (1906); Chrystal Springs Land & Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 177 U. S. 169 (1900) (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). Other cases were dismissed because the right alleged…
  • Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1906)
    …ise thereunder, because the controversy in the state court did not involve [*338] the construction of the treaty, but the validity of the title of Mexican and Spanish grants prior to the treaty.” Crystal Springs Land & Water Company v. Los Angeles, 177 U. S. 169, was a bill brought in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of California, and that court ruled, 82 Fed. Rep. 114, that where both parties claimed under' Mexican grants, confirmed and patented by the United States in accordance with the provi…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw