Legal Opinion

Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1921No. S. F. No. 9134PublishedCited by 25 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.

This is an action to foreclose an assessment for the improvement of a street in Oakland. The only defense interposed is that the work was not completed within the time limited in the contract. The court found that the work had not been completed within such time and therefore held the assessment void. The case was appealed to this court and transferred to the district court of appeal (first district, division one), which reversed the lower court, holding that the curative provisions of section 26 of the “Improvement Act of 1911” (Stats. 1911, p. 730), under which the work was done, validated…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Manning v. DenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Raisch v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Beveridge v. LivingstoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Fanning v. SchammelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. People v. MendozaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Palos Verdes Faculty Ass'n v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Clements v. T. R. Bechtel Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Prager v. IsrealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

20 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