Legal Opinion
Brandenburg v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 12, 1941No. Civ. No. 12480PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in defendant’s favor after the trial court had sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs’ third amended complaint without leave to amend.
The third amended complaint presents two causes of action, the first of which asserts that plaintiffs’ son met a “wrongful *308death” by reason of an “attractive nuisance” which existed at one of defendant's projects and was not properly guarded against, by reason of the claimed negligence of certain engineers of the United States of America and of the flood control district. In general, the allegations charge that prior to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Whiteman v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Western Assurance Co. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Nissen v. Cordua Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Scott v. AustinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
3Cited by7 opinions
- Clement v. State Reclamation BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Hayashi v. Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Barlow v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Kambish v. Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Clement v. State Reclamation BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.