Legal Opinion
Citizens Suburban Co. v. Rosemont Development Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 7, 1966No. Civ. 11108PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFriedman, J.
Plaintiff, a water company, seeks specific performance of a service agreement under which it claims the exclusive right to furnish water to the successive “units" of a subdivision development. The subdividers appeal from an adverse judgment.
The Rosemont subdivision is situated in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County just south of Highway 50. Owner of the land was Wunderlich Development Company. Two individuals, A. J. Stern and Richard Price, undertook to develop a residential subdivision in the area. The entire Rosemont tract consisted of approximately 400 acres and the sub-dividers…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Estate of PlattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Berniker v. BernikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Mitau v. RoddanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Crumpler v. Board of AdministrationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Crown Oil and Wax Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co. of Virginia, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Appalachian Insurance v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- San Luis Obispo Bay Properties, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1972
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.