Legal Opinion

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Jose

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 25, 1985No. A025840PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PREMO, J. *

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) sought a judicial declaration that it was entitled to partial reimbursement of costs expended in relocating its utilities to serve certain developments within respondent cities’ boundaries. PG&E sought to charge the assessment districts which had been created by the cities and had benefitted from the utilities. Respondent cities of San Jose and Mountain View demurred. The demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. This appeal ensued from the judgment of dismissal. We find the trial court’s determination proper and affirm the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Thompson v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Dawson v. Town of Los Altos HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Carr v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1958

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. County of Alameda v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Damé Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987
  3. City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  4. County of Orange v. Santa Margarita Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  5. Southern California Edison Company v. Orange County Transportation AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024

2 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