Legal Opinion

Musto-Keenan Co. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 2, 1934No. Civ. No. 5099PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPullen, P. J.

This is a consolidated appeal by plaintiffs from judgments rendered in favor of defendant after general demurrers had been sustained without leave to amend. Both plaintiffs were directly affected by the street improvement hereinafter set forth, hence the consolidation.

In 1928 a proceeding for the improvement of Soto and Lugo . Streets in the City of Los Angeles was instituted under the Boundary Line Act of 1911 as amended (Stats. *5091911, p. 1018), by the passage of an ordinance of intention by the council of the City of Los Angeles. Notice of this ordinance of intention was published and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bigelow v. BallerinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Sala v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Potter v. AmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Douglass v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Powers Farms, Inc. v. Consolidated Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Veterans' Welfare Board v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Young v. County of VenturaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Yonker v. City of San GabrielCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

12 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