Legal Opinion

Pittam v. City of Riverside

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 5, 1932No. Docket No. 637PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This is an action for damages for loss of bees and apiary equipment destroyed by fire which plaintiff alleges escaped from the dumping ground of the City of Riverside. A verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff and judgment entered in the sum of $1328.70, from which defendant appeals.

The City of Riverside, a municipal corporation organized and existing under a freeholders’ charter, owned a sizeable tract of land which it used as a dumping and burning ground for trash and garbage collected from within the city. Respondent owned a small tract of land upon which he lived and operated an…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Treadwell v. NickelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Chafor v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Kellar v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Coleman v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Miller v. City of Palo AltoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Nicholson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Osborn v. City of WhittierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Intagliata v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Behr v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Hilts v. County of SolanoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

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

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

Powered by the Exa API