Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Cella

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 15, 1953No. Civ. 8307PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PAULSEN, J. pro tem. *

This is an action to quiet title to an easement over defendants’ property for a % inch pipeline, together with the incidental right to enter and maintain the flow of water through said pipeline.

Plaintiffs also claimed damages incurred as a result of defendants’ action in shutting off the water and thereby depriving plaintiffs of household water and for loss of a sale of their property.

The court entered judgment quieting title to the easement in plaintiffs and awarding damages in the sum of $500, and costs.

Defendants’ motion for a new trial was denied. They now appeal…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kenniff v. CaulfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Rubio Cañon Land & Water Ass'n v. EverettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Pollard v. RebmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Powers v. PerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kytasty v. GodwinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  2. County of Contra Costa v. Central Contra Costa Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Jones v. HarmonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API