Legal Opinion
Liebman v. Richmond
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 23, 1930No. Docket No. 7131PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to abate the courthouse of Alameda County, alleging it to 'be a nuisance. The defendants appeared and interposed a demurrer to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed.
Among other things, it is alleged that Alameda County is a subdivision of the state; that the personal defendants are the supervisors of Alameda County; that plaintiff is an attorney at law, practicing before the courts of Alameda County, and in particular…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Mayrhofer v. Board of Education of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1884
- Louisville & Nashville Terminal Co. v. LellyettTennessee Supreme Court · 1904
- Pickens v. Coal River Boom Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Berton v. All Persons, Etc.California Supreme Court · 1917
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Nutter v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- City of Los Angeles v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Brown v. RuffenachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Lombardy v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.