Legal Opinion
City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 3, 1997No. A070278PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.—
When a municipal street-widening project is financed partly by assessment district funds and partly by fees imposed on development throughout the city, who must pay the cost of relocating utility poles to accommodate the new lanes of traffic? We conclude the utility company must pay.
Background
The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) operates its equipment in the streets of Livermore under a franchise granted by the city under the Franchise Act of 1937 (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 6201-6302). The circulation element of Livermore’s…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Knox v. City of OrlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Dawson v. Town of Los Altos HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Southern California Edison Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- County of Contra Costa v. Central Contra Costa Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authorithy v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Beutz v. County of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1999
- Riverside County Transportation Com. v. Southern Cal. Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Riverside County Transportation Comm. v. Southern Cal. Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 2020