Legal Opinion

Sacramento Paving Co. v. Anderson

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 30, 1905No. 50PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBuckles, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial in a case of street-assessment work on Eighteenth Street in the city of Sacramento. Work commenced at the south line of the alley between B and C streets and running south to the north line of E Street; from the south line of E Street to the north line of G Street; from the south line of G Street to the north line of H Street and so on to L. Street, omitting the cross streets; then commencing again at the south side of M Street running south, omitting the cross streets N, O, P, and Q, to the north line of R Street. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Morton v. BroderickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Hewes v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Chase v. City Treasurer of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Shipman v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Bates v. TwistCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Adler v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. People Ex Rel. Levin v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. People Ex Rel. Levin v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Town of Yreka City v. WarrensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API