S. M. Bernard Co. v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. F. E. Densmore, Judge Presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to have declared null and void a certain assessment levied against the property of plaintiffs to pay the cost of widening Eighth street from Main street to Central avenue, in Los Angeles, and to restrain the threatened sale of such property on account of delinquency in the payment of such assessment.
Judgment went for defendants, from which, and an order denying their motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appeal.
On March 8, 1907, the city council, pursuant to the provisions of the street opening act of 1903 (Stats. 1903, p. 376), duly adopted an ordinance declaring its intention to widen…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cady v. PurserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Hager v. MeltonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Labs v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Stoner v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. LuskCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Federal Construction Co. v. CurdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Ransome-Crummey Co. v. WoodhamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Copellar v. O. L. Crigler Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Eberle v. HubbardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Rindge Co. v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916