Legal Opinion
City of San Pablo v. City of Richmond
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 8, 1957No. Civ. 17181,17182; Civ. 17183PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.
Lying near to the cities of Richmond and San Pablo is certain uninhabited territory that both cities covet, and each has attempted to annex. Several facets of the controversy have already been before the appellate courts. (People v. City of Richmond, 141 Cal.App.2d 107 [296 P.2d 351]—the so-called Pennington case; Johnson v. City of San Pablo, 132 Cal.App.2d 447 [283 P.2d 57].)
The two cities, proceeding under the Annexation of Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939 (Gov. Code, §§ 35300-35326) purported to annex substantially the same territory. Cases numbered 1 Civ. 17181 and 1 Civ. 17182 are…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Forde v. Town of Corte MaderaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Johnson v. City of San PabloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- People Ex Rel. Pennington v. City of RichmondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- People Ex Rel. Boarts v. City of WestmorelandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Bray v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
3Cited by4 opinions
- East Bay Garbage Co. v. Washington Township Sanitation Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
- People Ex Rel. City of Downey v. Downey County Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- City of Cupertino v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960