Gill v. City of Oakland
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order denying a new trial. John Ellsworth, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to recover $2,405.20 alleged to have been paid by plaintiff to the street superintendent of defendant nnder protest, as an assessment in a street opening.
The city of Oakland by its council, in 1889, adopted a resolution of intention to open and extend Filbert street in said city between certain points, The proceedings were taken under the street opening act of 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 70). Eo question arises as to the regularity of the proceedings and the collection of the assessment as originally levied. A deficiency occurred of $6,641.31 in the collections nnder the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bucknall v. StoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Williams v. BerginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Chase v. City Treasurer of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Meek v. McClureCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Knowles v. New Sweden Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Spencer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Hughes v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Mardis v. McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.