Richardson v. City of Eureka
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, arid from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
— This is an action to abate a nuisance and to recover damages occasioned by the obstruction of a natural watercourse flowing across the plaintiff’s land. The obstruction complained of consists of an embankment erected in grading a street in the city of Eureka across the natural watercourse referred to.
A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, but the same was denied (92 Cal. 64), the court saying: “ Any defects alleged to exist in the statement of the case will be considered when the cause comes before us upon its merits.”
*446It is urged that the statement ought not to be considered, because it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Low v. McCallanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Richardson v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by9 opinions
- Archer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Sheffet v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Smith v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Richardson v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Portman v. Clementina Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.