Legal Opinion
Gramer v. City of Sacramento
California Supreme Court
Decided February 19, 1935No. Sac. 4732PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
We are concerned in this case with an appeal by the plaintiff as well as one by the intervener from a judgment rendered after trial in favor of the defendants. The action was commenced to compel the City of Sacramento to execute a reconveyance of certain parcels of land to the plaintiff for the benefit of the heirs of John A. Sutter, Jr., and the complaint in intervention claimed the land for the heirs of John A. Sutter, Sr. The contest arises out of the following facts:
By an ordinance of the City of Sacramento passed January 31, 1924, the city abandoned Seventeenth Street between B and C…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Citizens Sav. & Tr. Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Behlow v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Mulford v. Le FrancCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- John P. Van Ness, and Marcla His Wife v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington, and the United States of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Brown v. BachelderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Atlantic-Pacific Oil Co. v. Gas Development Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1937
- Rosecrans v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
- McDougall v. Palo Alto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- White v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.