Legal Opinion
City of Los Angeles v. Agardy
California Supreme Court
Decided May 31, 1934No. L. A. 14513PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The City of Los Angeles appeals from a judgment of dismissal and the order taxing costs entered in the above-entitled action in favor of Jennie and William L. Riley. The facts are undisputed and are as follows:
The city in 1923 commenced the above-entitled action for the purpose of condemning for street purposes certain parcels of real property. The action was instituted under the provisions of the Street Opening Act of 1903 (Stats. 1903, p. 376, as amended). Among the numerous defendants in that action were respondents herein, Jennie and William L. Riley, owners of part of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. AbbottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- City of Los Angeles v. OliverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- City of Los Angeles v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Brookes v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Frank v. MaguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. OrtizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- County of Kern v. GalatasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Frustuck v. City of FairfaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Torrance Unified School District v. AlwagCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- City of Bell v. American States Water & Service Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.