Legal Opinion

Rothaermel v. Amerige

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 21, 1921No. Civ. No. 3753PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Judgment was entered in this action as prayed for by the plaintiff,' except as to the amount of certain damages, and defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located in the city of Fullerton, county of Orange. Upon this land there was erected by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff a two-story brick building. The south wall of this building was placed within about two inches of the line dividing the property of plaintiff’s predecessor from that of the adjoining land owner, title to which latter land was afterward acquired by the defendant. At the time of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Clough v. W. H. Healy Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
  2. Grandona v. LovdalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Christensen v. TuckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Rankin v. DebareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. McKean v. Alliance Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Mary Jane Stevens Co. v. First Nat. Bldg. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Bonde v. BishopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

10 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