Vinnicombe v. State of California
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtDooling, J.
Appellants brought this action against the State of California to recover for consequential damage to their real property alleged to have resulted from the rerouting of a State highway. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of defendant on two grounds: 1. that plaintiffs had failed to furnish the undertaking required by Government Code, section 16047; 2. that the action was prematurely brought since the complaint was filed before the State Board of Control had rejected their claim presented pursuant to Government Code, section 16041. It is clear that if we determine that either…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Chesney v. ByramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Powers Farms, Inc. v. Consolidated Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- Wilson v. BevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTDSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1993
- County of Contra Costa v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Beaudreau v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Stanley v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.