City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County. F. B. Ogden, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in the opinion on the prior appeal herein, reported in 118 Cal. 160.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is a second appeal and is from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The first appeal is reported in 118 Cal. 160, [50 Pac. 277], The history of the case will there he found set forth at length, and need not here be repeated. The nature and physical extent of the city’s grant to Carpentier were there defined and delimited. That definition and delimitation have become the law of the ease. In the opinion of the chief justice, concurred in by two of the associate justices, it was held that Carpentier took title by virtue of the ordinances and deeds under the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Illinois Central Railroad v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Zottman v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- City of Manhattan Beach v. CortelyouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Yarus v. YarusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Henry Dalton & Sons Co. v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Nielsen v. EmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.