Legal Opinion

Brock v. Luning

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1891No. 13327PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court.

—This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and is brought up on the judgment roll alone.

The action was instituted to foreclose a street assess-# ment made by the superintendent of streets of the city and county of San Francisco. The court below found that the contract entered into by that officer and the person to whom the street-work was awarded by the board of supervisors of that city and county was void, because the time within which it specified the work was to be done was a different time than that authorized by the board in the notice inviting sealed proposals…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dougherty v. HitchcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Raisch v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Beveridge v. LivingstoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
  4. Fanning v. SchammelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Dougherty v. CoffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Chase v. City Treasurer of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Perine v. ForbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. CostaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Berwind v. Galveston & Houston Investment Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1899

9 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