Spar v. Pacific Bell
California Court of Appeal
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
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Spaulding v. CameronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Phillips v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Capogeannis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Bartleson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.