47 Cal.2d 695, 6460, Albonico v. Madera Irr. Dist.
|Citation:||47 Cal.2d 695, 306 P.2d 894|
|Opinion Judge:|| Shenk|
|Party Name:||Albonico v. Madera Irr. Dist.|
|Attorney:|| David E. Peckinpah, Denver C. Peckinpah, Harold M. Child and L. N. Barber for Appellants.  Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, B. Abbott Goldberg and Adolphus Moskovitz, Deputy Attorneys General, Harry W. Horton, R. J. Knox, Jr., Frank E. Jenney, Ronald B. Harris, P. J. Minasian, Martin McD...|
|Case Date:||January 24, 1957|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Arthur C. Shepard, Judge.[*]
David E. Peckinpah, Denver C. Peckinpah, Harold M. Child and L. N. Barber for Appellants.
Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, B. Abbott Goldberg and Adolphus Moskovitz, Deputy Attorneys General, Harry W. Horton, R. J. Knox, Jr., Frank E. Jenney, Ronald B. Harris, P. J. Minasian, Martin McDonough, J. Lee Rankin, Solicitor General of the United States, Perry W. Morton, Assistant Attorney General, David R. Warner and Roger P. Marquis, Attorneys, Department of Justice, [+] as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants.
Green, Green, Plumley & Kuney, Winslow B. Green, Kenneth P. Kuney, Sherwood Green, and Green, Green & Bartow for Respondents.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Herman Phleger, Alvin J. Rockwell and John M. Naff, Jr., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the petitioners Phillip and Jane E. Albonico, husband and wife, in a proceeding for the writ of mandate to compel the respondent Madera Irrigation District to vacate its resolution denying the exclusion from the district of the petitioners' lands in excess of 320 acres. Exclusion is sought on the ground that such excess lands would not be benefited by the operations of the district. (Wat. Code, sections 26728, 26729; Code Civ. Proc., section 1085.)
A brief history of the Madera Irrigation District from the time of its inception is set forth in the companion case, Madera Irr. Dist. v. All Persons, ante, p. 681 . That case involved the validity of a contract entered into by and between the district and the United States acting through its Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior for the sale and distribution of water for irrigating purposes to the landowners in the district. Among other provisions of the contract considered in that case were the so-called acreage limitations and enforced sales provisions. In substance it was provided that a single person owning in excess of 160 acres and a married couple in excess of 320 acres are "large land owners"; that large landowners shall, within 30 days after...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP