Martin v. City of Stockton
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was brought to quiet title to a certain parcel of land in the city of Stockton. The defendants answered and filed a cross-complaint, by which it appears that they claim title to a portion of the property, the city claiming a conditional fee, and Kile the reversionary interest, but both disclaiming any interest or claim in or to the residue of the land described in plaintiff’s complaint. The court found in accordance with the contention of defendants and cross-complainants, and from the judgment in their favor the appeal has been taken. The trial judge, Honorable J. A. Plummer, gave…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of L.A. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Patton v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Fitzgerald v. County of ModocCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Papst v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Pryor v. WinterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Friends of the Trails v. BlasiusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Commercial Waterway District No. 1 v. Permanente Cement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1963
- Biescar v. Czechoslovak-PatronatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- City of Los Angeles v. ForresterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Lacer v. Navajo CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.