Legal Opinion
Haigh v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 7, 1934No. Civ. No. 8430PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCOTT, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff recovered judgment against the City of Los Angeles for damages to his property resulting from a street improvement. The trial court found that the work was fully and finally completed on or about September 21, 1927; that plaintiff made demand upon defendant on October 10, 1927, for payment of damages thereby sustained “in the form and manner provided by the city charter” and that the claim was rejected March 6, 192'9, whereupon plaintiff brought suit. The sole question to be determined on this appeal is whether plaintiff made his demand in the manner and within…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Spencer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Continental Insurance v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Remillard v. Blake & Bilger Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by14 opinions
- Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Douglass v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Mosesian v. County of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- McCandless v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.