Harland v. State of California
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRODIN, J.
We are called upon to decide whether the State of California, like other parties to litigation, is obligated to pay interest on a judgment obtained against it in a tort action. We hold that it is so obligated by applicable provisions of the California Constitution, and on that ground we affirm the judgment below.
Plaintiffs in the underlying action (respondents here) sued the State of California (hereinafter appellant) for personal injuries and wrongful death caused by an automobile accident on the Benicia-Martinez Bridge in October 1970, and in July 1975 they obtained…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Williams v. HorvathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Bullis v. Security Pacific National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Benson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Sanders v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Lucius v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
- Jackson v. ClementsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Burns v. BaldwinIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
- San Francisco Unified School District v. San Francisco Classroom Teachers Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.