Legal Opinion

Gonella v. City of Merced

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 31, 1957No. Civ. 9001PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, P. J.

— Respondent Gonella, as plaintiff, brought this action to recover damages from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, hereinafter called Santa Fe, and the city of Merced, hereinafter called the city. His complaint charged the city with negligence in the construction and maintenance of certain of its streets, whereby surface waters were discharged over his land. Against Santa Fe he complained that the embankments upon which their tracks were situated where they crossed a public street in the city diverted the normal and natural flow of surface waters to and upon his land. The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lebrun v. RichardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Aguirre v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Hicks v. ButterworthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  4. Goodwin v. BradenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Keys v. RomleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Voight v. Southern Pacific Co.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1961
  3. Passarino v. City of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API