Legal Opinion
Ritzman v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 15, 1940No. Civ. 2517PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
This is an action to restrain the defendants from building a highway through that portion of the Arroyo Seco which lies within the limits of the city of Los Angeles and from deepening and widening the Arroyo Seco channel. An objection to the introduction of evidence was sustained on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The plaintiff, having declined to amend, has appealed from the judgment.
The complaint alleges that the Arroyo Seco is a natural storm drain meandering from the mountains north of Pasadena through a narrow basin to its terminal at the Los Angeles River;…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Reichelderfer v. QuinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Spires v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Slavich v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- City of Long Beach v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Harter v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Holloway v. PurcellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Lavine v. JessupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Newport v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Carl Beistline v. City of San Diego and General Dynamics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
- Furey v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.