Question

Scott Jensen owned two hundred acres of farmland in California. A creek flowed through the land, and Jensen used water from the creek to irrigate his crops. The water was adequate for his needs. Wesley Sarvis purchased farmland upstream from Jensen's property and began using water from the creek to irrigate. Claiming that he had exclusive rights to the water, Jensen filed a lawsuit in a California state court against Sarvis for using the water. The court held that Jensen and Sarvis had to divide their water use equally and that each of them was entitled to use the water every other week. Fifty years later, a similar dispute arose between two more California farmers. Bo Ellis lived upstream from Faye Deason. Deason claimed that she had exclusive rights to the water and filed a lawsuit in a California state court against Ellis for his use of the water. What is the likely outcome of Deason's lawsuit? What legal rules/laws apply? What laws/rules will make an impact on the outcome?

Answer 1

The likely outcome of the case will be similar to Scott and Wesley's case i.e. Bo and Faye would be asked to divide their water use equally and no one had exclusive rights to use of water.

The legal rule (Principle) applicable here is Stare decisis which means to stand by things decided. Stare decisis is a legal principle which implies that a case can be decided by a precedent set in a case with similar facts. In the Bo Ellis and Faye Deason case, the facts are similar to Scott and Wesley case, hence a similar decision can be given by Court using the principle of Stare decisis.