Legal Opinion
Ocean Shore Railroad v. City of Santa Cruz
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 20, 1961No. Civ. 19341PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSalsman, J.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the appellant’s first amended complaint and refused leave to amend further. This appeal is from the judgment thereafter entered.
It is the appellant’s contention that its land has been taken by the respondent and that article I, section 14 of the California Constitution guarantees appellant’s right to compensation; that no statute of limitations has been directed to this constitutional provision, and that respondent cannot be deemed to have acquired any right or title to appellant’s property by adverse possession. The respondent, on the other…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Terry v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Scheas v. RobertsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Wilson v. BevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Williams v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Frustuck v. City of FairfaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Leaf v. City of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Valley Circle Estates v. VTN Consolidated, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1983
- Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.