corporeal privilege in California

2025(E.g., City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1240 [“An overlying right ‘… is based on the ownership of the land and is appurtenant thereto’”]; Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 255 [“‘Although there is no private property right in the corpus of the water …, the right to its use is classified as real property.’ … Appropriative water rights are ordinarily appurtenant to the land”]; Nicoll v. Rudnick, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 558 [same].) California’s requirement of severance from the land as a prerequisite to water being treated as per

2014Thus, after first considering this priority, courts may limit it to present and prospective reasonable beneficial uses, consonant with article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. [Citation.]” (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1240 .) The established law in California is that “once . . . water rights are acquired, they become appurtenant to the land. . . . ‘“The right to water must be treated in this state as it has always been treated, as a right running with the land and as a corporeal privilege bestowed upon the occupier or appropriator of the soil; and as such, has none of the chara

2014Thus, after first considering this priority, courts may limit it to present and prospective reasonable beneficial uses, consonant with article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. [Citation.]” (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1240 .) The established law in California is that “once . . . water rights are acquired, they become appurtenant to the land. . . . ‘“The right to water must be treated in this state as it has always been treated, as a right running with the land and as a corporeal privilege bestowed upon the occupier or appropriator of the soil; and as such, has none of the chara

2008Water Co. v. Jess (1911) 161 Cal. 516, 520 [119 R 934].) The following quotation from Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman (1908) 152 Cal. 716, 726-727 [ 93 P. 858 ], leaves no room for doubt that such rights are appurtenant to and run with the land; “The right in water which has been diverted into ditches or other artificial conduits, for the purpose of conducting it to land for irrigation, has been uniformly classed as real property in this state. ‘The right to water must be treated in this state as it has always been treated, as a right running with the land and as a corporeal privilege bestowed

2008Water Co. v. Jess (1911) 161 Cal. 516, 520 [119 R 934].) The following quotation from Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman (1908) 152 Cal. 716, 726-727 [ 93 P. 858 ], leaves no room for doubt that such rights are appurtenant to and run with the land; “The right in water which has been diverted into ditches or other artificial conduits, for the purpose of conducting it to land for irrigation, has been uniformly classed as real property in this state. ‘The right to water must be treated in this state as it has always been treated, as a right running with the land and as a corporeal privilege bestowed

2008Water Co. v. Jess (1911) 161 Cal. 516, 520 [119 R 934].) The following quotation from Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman (1908) 152 Cal. 716, 726-727 [ 93 P. 858 ], leaves no room for doubt that such rights are appurtenant to and run with the land; “The right in water which has been diverted into ditches or other artificial conduits, for the purpose of conducting it to land for irrigation, has been uniformly classed as real property in this state. ‘The right to water must be treated in this state as it has always been treated, as a right running with the land and as a corporeal privilege bestowed

1965In these circumstances I do not understand how this court can find — even if a majority declare technical error — that "it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error." ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Absent such an affirmative finding we are unequivocally forbidden by California Constitution, article VI, section 4 1/2 [1] to "set aside" the judgment or grant a new trial.

1965In these circumstances I do not understand how this court can find — even if a majority declare technical error — that "it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error." ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Absent such an affirmative finding we are unequivocally forbidden by California Constitution, article VI, section 4 1/2 [1] to "set aside" the judgment or grant a new trial.