Legal Opinion
City of Los Angeles v. Deacon
California Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 1935No. L. A. 14945; S. F. 15159PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
The above-entitled eases have been consolidated for consideration for the reason that for all practical purposes they involve the same parties and the same subject-matter.
The City of Los Angeles filed a condemnation proceeding on June 30, 1928, involving twelve parcels of land, for the purpose of condemning said lands for street purposes. The G. H. Deacon Investment Company et al., respondents in L. A. No. 14945, owned or had some interest in three of the parcels, designated as parcels 8, 11 and 12 in the complaint. In September, 1928, the city secured an order permitting it to take immediate…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Pool v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- City of Los Angeles v. DeaconCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- California Southern Railroad v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. ChubbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. AitkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Southern Public Utility District v. SilvaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Frustuck v. City of FairfaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.