City of Eureka v. Armstrong
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of Commissioner Hayne in Department Two.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
— In this case there was a decision in
Department affirming the judgment. A hearing in Bank was ordered, mainly because a number of cases involving the doctrine of the dedication of streets to the public were either then under advisement or had recently been decided; and it was thought best to again carefully ' compare the case at bar with the others. After further consideration, we are satisfied with the opinion delivered in Department. There is nothing in that opinion inconsistent with People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70, or City of Eureka v. Croghan, 81 Cal. 524. The sale of land described *624as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harding & Loftin v. JasperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- City of Eureka v. CroghanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Kittle v. PfeifferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by16 opinions
- Archer v. Salinas CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- City & County of San Francisco v. GroteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- State of California v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- City of Los Angeles v. McCollumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- London & San Francisco Bank, Ltd. v. City of OaklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.