Ramish v. Hartwell
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. M. T. Allen, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
—The city council of Los Angeles, in January, 1896, ordered the improvement of a portion of Sixth street in that city in accordance with the provisions of the street improvement act, and the work thus authorized was completed to the satisfaction of the superintendent of streets, and an assessment made therefor by him. Before passing its ordinance of intention therefor the city council found, upon estimates of the city engineer, that the cost of the work would be in excess of one dollar per front foot along the line of the street upon which the improvement was to be made, and thereupon…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Castillo v. McConnicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- McCready v. Sexton & SonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Ensign v. . BarseNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Kirk v. RhoadsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Spring Valley Water Works v. San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Miller v. McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Hill v. BadeljyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Casteel v. City of DecaturSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.