Legal Opinion

People v. Sayig

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 26, 1951No. Civ. 14385PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.

The state brought this proceeding in eminent domain to condemn, for highway purposes, defendants’ interests, if any, in a 15-foot strip of land fronting defendants’ properties. Admittedly, defendants have title to the underlying fee of the strip in question. The complaint, as amended, alleged that all of the property sought to be condemned “is subject to an easement or prescriptive right of the public for public travel thereover by vehicular and pedestrian traffic.” The trial court found this allegation to be true, and further found that the bare fee title, subject to the public easement, was…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Eachus v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
  5. O'BANION v. BorbaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Gion v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. People v. AyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  4. State v. PetersonMontana Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Carazalla v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

52 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