Legal Opinion

Christensen v. Tucker

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 4, 1952No. Civ. 15333PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.

Plaintiff and defendants own adjoining parcels of real property in East Ben Lomond, in Santa Cruz County. Defendants constructed certain structures that encroached on plaintiff’s land. Plaintiff brought this action for a mandatory injunction to compel removal of the encroachments, for damages for their maintenance, and damages for diversion of water onto plaintiff’s land caused by the encroachments. Defendants answered, and cross-complained to quiet their title to the area occupied by the encroachments. The court, after finding that the encroachments had been constructed on plaintiff’s land,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wright v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Felsenthal v. WarringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Kershishian v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  4. Morgan v. VeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. McKean v. Alliance Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. United States of America, United States of America, State of Louisiana, Intervenor-Appellee v. Marine Shale Processors, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
  2. Hirshfield v. SchwartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Davis v. WestphalMontana Supreme Court · 2017
  5. Dolske v. GormleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962

48 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