Legal Opinion

Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. Heilbron

California Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1909No. Sac. No. 1594PublishedCited by 96 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This action was to condemn for railroad purposes a strip of land extending diagonally across a tract owned by defendant. Following the jury’s award of damages defendant appeals, the principal contention upon appeal being that the court erred when instructing the jury upon' the law governing their consideration in estimating the damages sustained by defendant. The asserted errors are found in instruction VIII, laying down the rule for measuring damages for the land actually taken, and in instruction IX, where the jury is told how to arrive at the damages which may have resulted by the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Cent. Pac. R.R. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. City of Santa Ana v. HarlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by96 opinions

  1. People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Marina View Heights Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1977
  5. People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948

91 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