Legal Opinion

Sickles v. Mt. Whitney Power & Electric Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1918No. Sac. No. 2468PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Farnsworth & McClure, and Power & McFadzean, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.

This is an appeal by the Mt. Whitney Power & Electric Company from a judgment, after verdict against it and in favor of the respondents, plaintiffs, and defendant San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation.

The appellant was operating a power line carrying an electrical current of thirty-three thousand volts and also a telephone line using one hundred volts. For some distance these lines were parallel. The high voltage electric line came in contact with the telephone line, the electricity passed along the telephone line and into a private line owned by the plaintiff Sickles, then to his house,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Fearon v. FoderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Cook v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Langazo v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. Lozano v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  3. Orange County Air Pollution Control District v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Howel v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. ORANGE CTY. AIR POLLUTION CTRL DIST. v. Pub. Util. Com.California Supreme Court · 1971

7 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