Legal Opinion

City of Los Angeles v. Aitken

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 4, 1935No. Civ. 5415PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

The plaintiffs have appealed from that portion of a judgment which was rendered against them in a suit in eminent domain which imposes damages for condemnation of the littoral rights of the respondents in their separate parcels of land adjacent to Mono Lake.

One problem only is presented on this appeal. It is the question as to whether a municipality seeking to condemn the fee simple title to the littoral rights of adjacent land owners to maintain the natural level of a navigable, no'ntidal lake, the water of which is so impregnated with mineral salts and alkali as to render it unfit for…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Conger v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1921
  5. People v. Truckee Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. National Audubon Society v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Munns v. StenmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  3. Colberg, Inc. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks.California Supreme Court · 1967
  4. People Ex Rel. Baker v. MacKCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  5. State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon)California Supreme Court · 1981

26 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