Legal Opinion

Spar v. Pacific Bell

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 14, 1991No. B045617PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1482Opinion

WOODS (Fred), J.

—Canord Investment Company1 appeals from the trial court’s judgment which held, because respondent Pacific Bell’s telephone facilities were a permanent nuisance, plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for a permanent nuisance/trespass. Plaintiff contends the nuisance was instead continuing and, therefore, its cause of action was not barred by the statute of limitations. We find the trespass/nuisance to be permanent in nature, barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Facts and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  2. Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Spaulding v. CameronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Phillips v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
  3. Capogeannis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  4. Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Bartleson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996

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

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

Powered by the Exa API