Legal Opinion

Danziger v. Peebler

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 3, 1948No. Civ. 16220PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.

The judgment from which the instant appeal is prosecuted declares that certain roads extending across the property of defendants and cross-complainants, Byron and Edith M. Feebler, are not public roads and that the defendants own a small office building located on their land.

For the purposes of our decision the following statement of facts will suffice. Edith W. Danziger owns a small parcel of land which she operates as a cemetery. Defendants Feebler own adjoining property, also operated as a cemetery. Certain roadways extend from a public road through the Feebler prop erty to that of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fischer v. Pauline Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Mays v. FrittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  3. Work v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Peebler v. OldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Rosenbloom v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Valley Racing Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. Green v. GreenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Estate of WaltersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Kropp v. Sterling Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  5. Homefinders v. LawrenceIdaho Supreme Court · 1959

8 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