McCarty v. Southern Pacific Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Further, facts are stated in the opinion of the court in 144 Cal. 677, [78 Pac. 260].
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] We adhere to the views expressed in the opinion rendered on the former hearing. The purpose of the present hearing was by the order therefor limited to the consideration of the "validity of the condemnation proceedings and the right of the intervener to an easement, under said proceedings, of greater width and extent than that given in the judgment appealed from." The former opinion assumed, without deciding, that the condemnation proceedings were valid, and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Paulsen v. PortlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Pryor v. DowneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Haynes v. MeeksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- In re Grove StreetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Meeks v. HahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harrington v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- City of Oakland v. SchenckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- City of Los Angeles v. AitkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- City of San Gabriel v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.