Legal Opinion
McIntosh v. Brimmer
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 24, 1924No. Civ. No. 4212PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.
This is an action to abate a nuisance by enjoining defendants from continuing to conduct their chicken corrals in such a manner that the dust therefrom will injure plaintiff’s trees, vines, and grapes, and to recover damages for past injuries. The judgment, which was in favor of plaintiff, awarded damages in the sum of three hundred dollars and enjoined defendants, from maintaining the nuisance. From this judgment the defendants have appealed.
The case presented by the complaint is substantially this: Plaintiff is the lessee of a thirty-acre parcel of land in Los Angeles County at the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bohan v. Port Jervis Gaslight Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- McCarty v. . Natural Carbonic Gas Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Judson v. L.A. Suburban Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. MaloneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
- Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- Anderson v. SouzaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Hassell v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Miles v. A. Arena & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
- Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.