City of Burlingame v. Norberg
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
Apparently it is conceded that on August 10, 1905, the Howard Estate Company, a corporation, filed a supplemental map to the official map of the City of Burlingame, showing a division of a tract of land owned by it into lots and blocks and at the same time showing without name or number a strip running irregularly across said tract some twenty feet in width, embracing therein the bed of Burlingame Creek. The present controversy involves the reversionary estate in that portion of said strip, 155 feet 3 inches long, which parallels the city hall property in said town.
The uncontroverted facts…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- City of Oakland v. SchenckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Parks v. GatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Wright v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Porter v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gache v. Town of Harrison, NYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- People v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Glatts v. HensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Langstaff v. MitchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.