McKim v. Imperial Irrigation District

California Supreme Court

McKim v. Imperial Irrigation District

255 P. 508, 201 Cal. 768, 1927 Cal. LEXIS 522

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 22, 1927

DocketDocket No. L.A. 9190.

StatusPublished

This text of 255 P. 508 (McKim v. Imperial Irrigation District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKim v. Imperial Irrigation District, 255 P. 508, 201 Cal. 768, 1927 Cal. LEXIS 522 (Cal. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] This appeal is from the identical judgment involved in the case of McKim v. Imperial Irrigation *Page 769 District et al., ante, p. 110 [255 P. 506], and is submitted upon the transcript and briefs filed in said case. The facts material to this appeal are set forth fully in the decision just referred to, and reference to the same will suffice here. The judgment appealed from having been reversed in the companion case, further consideration of it upon this appeal becomes unnecessary and the questions presented by appellant herein become moot.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Curtis, J., Preston, J., Richards, J., Waste, C.J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

Shenk, J., being disqualified, did not participate herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1] This appeal is from the identical judgment involved in the case of McKim v. Imperial Irrigation *Page 769 District et al., ante, p. 110 [255 P. 506], and is submitted upon the transcript and briefs filed in said case. The facts material to this appeal are set forth fully in the decision just referred to, and reference to the same will suffice here. The judgment appealed from having been reversed in the companion case, further consideration of it upon this appeal becomes unnecessary and the questions presented by appellant herein become moot.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Curtis, J., Preston, J., Richards, J., Waste, C.J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

Shenk, J., being disqualified, did not participate herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 P. 508, 201 Cal. 768, 1927 Cal. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckim-v-imperial-irrigation-district-cal-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack