Legal Opinion

City of Los Angeles v. Duncan

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 23, 1933No. Docket No. 8667PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

In each of these consolidated cases the City of Los Angeles, as successor of the city of Venice, to which tide lands, within its then territorial limits, had been granted by Statutes 1917, page 89, sued to quiet its title to a portion of such tide lands, lying oceanward of the seaward boundaries of the properties of the respective respondents. Such tide lands are situated on the Pacific Ocean at Playa Del Rey about 26 miles northwesterly from the entrance of Los Angeles harbor and lie adjacent to and northwesterly of a narrow inlet through the beach of Santa Monica Bay into…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Chapman v. PolackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Curtis v. UptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R.R.California Supreme Court · 1920
  5. City of Oakland v. WheelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. White v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  2. Crow v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
  3. Lechuza Villas West v. California Coastal Com.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  4. Bryant v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1954
  5. Horne v. Howe Lumber CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945

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