Legal Opinion

People v. William Kent Estate Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 11, 1966No. Civ. 22449PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDraper, P. J.

This appeal requires definition of the statutory term “ordinary high water mark” (Civ. Code, § 830), and application of the rule to a situation in which the land itself moves in greater degree, but with less frequency, than do the tides.

Defendant owned a sandspit bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean, and on the opposite side by Bolinas Lagoon. On each of these sides, defendant owned the upland and the state the submerged lands. Following state survey, defendant brought a quiet title action. Decree was entered in 1950. Defendant then subdivided the land and sold some lots. It drove a line…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Strand Improvement Co. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Dana v. Jackson St. Wharf Co.California Supreme Court · 1866
  4. Carpenter v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Curtis v. UptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. IbbisonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1982
  2. Aptos Seascape Corp. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  3. Carolina Beach Fishing Pier, Inc. v. Town of Carolina BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  4. Lechuza Villas West v. California Coastal Com.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  5. Littoral Development Co. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994

3 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