Legal Opinion

Gould & Kane, Inc. v. Valterza

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 8, 1940No. Civ. 11122PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

In an action to obtain an injunction to prevent the defendants from maintaining a nuisance the trial court awarded the plaintiff a judgment. The defendants have appealed and have brought up the judgment roll. In effect the defendants contend that the plaintiff’s complaint did not state a cause of action, that its allegations were not sustained by the proof, and that the judgment is not supported by the findings.

The plaintiff corporation owns adjoining lots located in a certain block facing Kains Avenue. The defendants own lots in the same block facing San Pablo Avenue. Said lots abut at the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hulbert v. California Etc. Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Hassell v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Schneider v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Daubenspeck v. GrearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  5. Randall v. FreedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Wade v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. In Re ValterzaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API