Legal Opinion

Miller v. Fowle

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 15, 1949No. Civ. 13980; Civ. 13981PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

These two cases were consolidated for trial. Miller sued Boynton and others to enjoin the construction of a street through his property. Nordstrom sued Miller and others to establish an easement for street purposes through the Miller property. Both judgments were for Miller. The notices of appeal are limited to Fowle, Boynton and Nordstrom and these join in a brief which states the issues to be (1) whether the land involved is in a duly dedicated public street, and (2) whether appellants acquired the right to use the land as a way of necessity.

The facts may be stated briefly. Appellants’…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Glatts v. HensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. City of Manhattan Beach v. CortelyouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Mulville v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. City of Oakland v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Clay v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  2. County of Santa Clara v. CurtnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. County of Los Angeles v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. City of Pueblo v. FlandersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1950
  5. Burns International Security Services Corp. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

2 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