SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

v.

AMELIA HERMINGHAUS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986)
  …t of and by itself debase a fee’ ”) (quoting Kerlin v. Campbell, 15 Pa. St. 500 (1850)). Thus, the Court’s interpretations of some of the earlier grants conceived of those grants as conveying a fee interest to the States. See also Brooks v. Koonce, 275 U. S. 486 (1927) (per curiam), aff’g Sloan v. Blytheville Special School Dist. No. 5, 169 Ark. 77, 273 S. W. 397 (1925) (relying on Cooper and Schmidt to dismiss challenge by local school board to use of proceeds from local Sixteenth Section lands for the ben…
• United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1950)
  …ustrated by the riparian-rights doctrine when, in 1926, the California Supreme Court decided Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co., 200 Cal. 81, 252 P. 607, and this Court, after argument, dismissed certiorari for want of a federal question, 275 U. S. 486 (1927). That case involved just such questions as we have here. Southern California Edison projected [*750] a large storage of San Joaquin waters in the mountains primarily for power generation. Plaintiffs’ ranch, like lands of claimants, had always…
• Rice v. Sioux City Mem'l Park Cemetery, Inc., 349 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1955)
  …261 U. S. 387; Southern Rower Co. v. North Carolina Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U. S. 508; Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co., 264 U. S. 314; Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182; Erie R. Co. v. Kirkendall, 266 U. S. 185; Southern California Edison Co. v. Herminghaus, 275 U. S. 486; Mellon v. McKinley, 275 U. S. 492; Missouri-K.-T. R. Co. v. Texas, 275 U. S. 494; Ellison v. Koswig, 276 U. S. 598; Johnson v. Thornburgh, 276 U. S. 601; Carter Oil Co. v. Eli, 277 U. S. 573; Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Commissioners, 278 U. S. 558;…

Authorities Cited

• Cent. Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1895)
• Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1907)
• Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1909)