McNeil v. City of Montague
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
PAULSEN, J. pro tem. * *
The appellant seeks to recover damages for property alleged to have been destroyed or damaged by fire which spread from one set by the agents of the city while they were burning dry grass near the city hall for the purposes of fire suppression and weed control.
The complaint attempts to state two causes of action. The first was based upon negligence in permitting the fire to escape. The second was based upon the same acts and recites:
“That upon the 2nd day of August, 1951, while acting in its governmental capacity and doing an act in its governmental capacity, to-wit,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miller v. City of Palo AltoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Ketcham v. Modesto Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hanson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bauer v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Customer Co. v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Neff v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Thune v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- Patel v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.