City of Santa Monica v. Jones
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
HANSON, J. pro tem.
The first question presented in this action, instituted by the city of Santa Monica to condemn realty for a public use, is whether the heirs at law of the original grantors, of what is conceded by the parties to be a fee on condition, are entitled to all or a part of an award for the taking of a part of the property, upon the theory that because of a breach of the conditions of the grant, the heirs were revested with the estate granted or if not so vested that the vesting thereof was so imminent as to permit of their participation in the award.
The second question presented…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- First Reformed Dutch Church v. CroswellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Hawley v. KafitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Lawson v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1914
- United States v. 1119.15 Acres of LandDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 1942
- Romero v. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Faus v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- Hemphill v. Mississippi State Highway CommissionMississippi Supreme Court · 1962
- Briggs v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979
- McDougall v. Palo Alto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.