Oakland Paving Co. v. Donovan
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. T. W. Harris, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
This action was commenced to enforce a street assessment lien for work done in the city of Oakland under the so-called Vrooman act (Stats. 1885, p. 147, and acts amendatory thereof previous to 1904). The resolution of intention was adopted March 7, 1904, and the work was done pursuant to contract duly let, as appears from the complaint and is not denied. It is further alleged in the complaint that the superintendent of streets of the city of Oakland made, issued and recorded the assessment-roll, authenticated the record thereof and recorded the return on the warrant. The answer denied that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- McDowell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Nofire v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Petersilea v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Hamlin v. KassaferOregon Supreme Court · 1887
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Koch v. KeenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Toomey v. McCaffreySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Smith v. County EngineerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.