CECIL CONNER

v.

MURIEL CONNER

Citator

Cited By

• Seminole Cnty. v. Mertz, 415 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
  …ater were in a natural watercourse, that would only allow for an increased flow, and the diversion still would be impermissible. New Homes of Pensacola v. Mayne, 169 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Stoer v. Ocala Mfg., Ice & Packing Co., 157 Fla. 4, 24 So. 2d 579 (1946). The question of whether a water flow is diffused surface water or a natural watercourse is one of fact. Libby, McNeil & Libby v. Roberts, 110 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Such findings of a trial judge should not be disturbed in the absenc…
• Libby v. Roberts, 110 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
  …city of the natural drain, or whether he is subject only to the limitation of diversion, the evidence does not show that appellee exceeded his right upon the one theory or the other.” And again in Stoer v. Ocala Mfg., Ice & Packing Co., 157 Fla. 4, 24 So. 2d 579, 580, which was an appeal from a decree dismissing appellant’s bill of complaint in which he sought, among other things, to enjoin appellees from obstructing the natural course of the Ocklawaha river by impounding its waters and then releasing them,…