City Street Improvement Co. v. Babcock
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court,
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Action upon a street assessment. The proceedings for the work covered by the assessment were taken under the street improvement act as amended in 1891. Section 3 of the act (Stats. 1891, p. 196) contained the following-provisions: “The owners of a majority of the frontage of the-property fronting on said proposed work or improvement, where-the same is for one block or more, may make a written objection to the same within ten days after the expiration of the time of the publication and posting of said notices, which objection shall be delivered to the clerk of the city council, who shall…
2Cited by14 opinions
- City of Sedalia ex rel. Gilsonite Construction Co. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Mosher v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1923
- Knopfi v. Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- City Street Improvement Co. v. LairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Mosher v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.