Legal Opinion

Newport Bay Dredging Co. v. Helm

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 22, 1932No. Docket No. 624PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAMBERT, J., pro tem.

The plaintiff and appellant Newport Bay Dredging Company, a corporation, instituted an action against the defendant and respondent Glen Helm for the restitution of certain premises situated on Newport Bay and for damages for withholding possession for more than three years. The respondent, in addition to an answer denying the allegations of the complaint, filed a cross-complaint setting forth two causes of action. In the first cause of action he pleaded title by adverse possession and in the second cause of action he alleged that the plaintiff had deeded all of its right,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Williams v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Bury v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Keyes v. NimsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Campbell v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Shreeves v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Holman v. TotenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Bank of America National Trus & Savings Ass'n. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  4. Deming v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Hartman v. WoodSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989

1 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