Legal Opinion

City of Petaluma v. Hickey

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 4, 1928No. Docket No. 6079PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to recover a judgment for money. The defendant appeared and answered. The trial was had before the lower court, sitting without a jury. That court made findings of fact in favor of the defendant, and from a judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed and has brought up a bill of exceptions.

The controversy is an outgrowth of a street improvement proceeding. J. E. Cavanagb et ah, owned two tracts in the City of Petaluma. The City commenced a proceeding for the opening, extending, and widening of Douglas Street. Thereafter such…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. People of the State of N.Y. v. . IngersollNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  2. Board of Supervisors v. . EllisNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. Douglass v. ToddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Lamar Township v. City of LamarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
  5. People of the State of N.Y. v. . FieldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1874

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Moss v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Aebli v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Pack v. VartanianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Dunne v. City of Fall RiverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952

1 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