Legal Opinion
Fendley v. City of Anaheim
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 31, 1930No. Docket No. 169PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARMER, J., pro tem.
The complaint, so far as pertinent here, alleges damage to the properties owned and occupied by the plaintiffs and damages for the personal discomfort of plaintiffs because of the vibrations, noises, shaking and jarring of the residences of plaintiffs caused by the operating of a certain gas-engine, compressor and machinery of the defendants operated in the neighborhood of the residence of said plaintiffs.
The answer denies the damages, but admits the operation of said machinery; alleges that the plant is operated in what might b.e termed an industrial part of the said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Judson v. L.A. Suburban Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Dauberman v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Williams v. Blue Bird Laundry Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- McIntosh v. BrimmerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- McCarthy v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Miles v. A. Arena & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
- South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.