Legal Opinion

Montebello Unified School District v. Keay

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 2, 1942No. Civ. 13512PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J. pro tem.

The defendants have appealed from a judgment condemning a part of their property for school purposes. No question is raised as to the propriety of the judgment insofar as it determines the sum to be paid for the land taken, nor is any point made that the judgment is at fault in its allotment for the damages accruing to the two pieces of defendants’ property not being condemned. The position the defendants take on this appeal is this: the evidence fails to show that the property chosen for the site of a new school was “located in the manner which will be most compatible with…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Kern County Union High School District v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. People v. Marblehead Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Vallejo & Northern Railroad v. Home Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  5. Housing Authority v. ForbesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. SFPP, L.P. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe RailwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  2. County of Maricopa v. AndersonArizona Supreme Court · 1957
  3. City of Hawthorne v. PeeblesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. People v. OkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Los Altos School District v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API