What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property.
I guess you could call it a win: it required Khosla to keep the road open until he gets a fencing permit. Khosla took it to court on principle, since he believed that such injunction is already takings: indeed, since the courts affirmed that public does not have access to his property through the road, stopping him from blocking such access issues illegal.
Since he has every right to get such a fencing permit (as there is no easement, right of way or any other public access through his property where he wants to fence it), in a perfect world he’d simply apply for such permit and promptly get it. In reality though, it is highly likely that the state of California will try to use the fence permitting rights it has to stop him from exercising his property rights, which is exactly what Khosla tried to ensure cannot happen in his Supreme Court petition.
What do you mean? He won at every turn. The courts have ruled that there's no easement, and that the public have no access to the water through his property.
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...