Legal Opinion · Dissent

Britt v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1978No. L.A. 30786Published

1DissentRichardson, J.

I respectfully dissent, and conclude that discovery should be permitted in both of the principal areas sought by defendant public entity.

I amplify somewhat on the factual recitation of the majority. Plaintiffs are 936 property owners and occupants of land contiguous to, or situated near, Lindbergh Field in San Diego. They have sued a public agency, San Diego Unified Port District, which operates the field, for “not less than” $9,360,000. The gravamen of the complaint, contained in 11 counts and urging 6 theories of recovery, is that because of the use of Lindbergh Field by jet aircraft, and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. In Re LifschutzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

3 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