Legal Opinion
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. County of San Mateo
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 29, 1965No. Civ. 22024PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRAY, J. †
Defendant appeals from judgment (trial without jury) in favor of plaintiff of $14,149.14 in an action in inverse condemnation.
Questions Presented
1. Sufficiency of evidence to support finding of interference with plaintiff’s easement.
2. Was the proper measure of damages applied?
Record
In 1947 or 1949 plaintiff acquired an easement from the Menlo Investment Company (defendant’s predecessor in title) for the installation of a gas pipeline. Part of the land subject to the easement was adjacent to Sand Hill Road (Searsville-Menlo Park Road) near Stanford University. The terms of the grant…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Frustuck v. City of FairfaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Armenta v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Citizens Utilities Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. MinnetteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mattel, Inc. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.District Court, C.D. California · 2011
- Cassinos v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Tilem v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Baker v. RamirezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Housley v. City of PowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.