Heintzen v. Binninger
Citations
- 79 Cal. 5
- 21 P. 377
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 658
Syllabus
<p>Water Rights—Pleading—Prescriptive Right—Usuerttctuary Right to the Use. —An allegation that for ten years prior to the commencement of the action, the plaintiff “had the undisputed usufructuary right to the use of the waters ” of a certain stream, does not allege a right to the use of the waters acquired by prescription.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is not a final judgment “until such time as the agreement ‘has been made the judgment of the court, thereby terminating the litigation’”
- “notwithstanding the trial court’s grant of a motion to enforce a settlement, a case is not at an end until such time as the agreement has been made the judgment of the court, thereby terminating the litigation”
- order correcting the amount of life insurance policy in a final divorce decree resulted in an extension of time from which to file a timely discretionary application
- “This corrective action constituted a final order which is directly appealable. [Because] Husband filed his application for discretionary appeal within 30 days of entry of that final appealable order, it was timely.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Foote
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.