Legal Opinion
Oro Loma Sanitary District v. Valley
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 26, 1948No. Civ. No. 13721PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.
Appeal by plaintiff district from that portion of an interlocutory judgment in condemnation which allowed defendant Dorothy Giacometti certain sums as severance dam*877ages, and “which fails to allow the plaintiff any off-set, or deduction from said damages, for the benefits accrued to defendant’s property.’’
The single question presented is—in an action in eminent domain brought by a sanitary district against the owner of property which has been specially assessed under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, is the sanitary district entitled to have the benefits which accrue to the property set…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Collier v. Merced Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- People v. McReynoldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- County of Los Angeles v. Marblehead Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- City of Detroit v. LoulaMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
- Gutschow v. Washington CountyNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- E-470 Public Highway Authority v. 455 Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1997
- City of Baldwin Park v. StoskusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Podesta v. Linden Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.