Legal Opinion

Douglass v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1935No. L. A. 15375Published

1Opinion of the Court

5 Cal.2d 123 (1935)

ALICE DOUGLASS, Appellant,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Respondent.

L. A. No. 15375.

Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

December 31, 1935.

Zach Lamar Cobb and Earl A. Littlejohns for Appellant.

Erwin P. Werner, City Attorney, Frederick von Schrader, Assistant City Attorney, and Arthur Loveland and D. M. Kitzmiller, Deputies City Attorney, for Respondent.

Harold P. Huls, City Attorney (Pasadena), and John W. Holmes, Deputy City Attorney, as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Respondent.

SHENK, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant City of Los…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Eachus v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Douglass v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Davoust v. City of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

15 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