Nebel v. Guyer
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, P. J.
Plaintiffs brought this action to compel defendants Prank L. and Emmeline Guyer to remove a building which they claimed was constructed in part on the lot of plaintiffs. They also prayed for $500 punitive damages. After trial by the court sitting without a jury, plaintiffs appealed from a judgment for defendants.
The evidence shows that defendant Flournoy owned a large lot on the north side of Main Street in Quincy, Plumas County, which was bounded on the east by Church Street. Plaintiffs were tenants of Flournoy, occupying the easterly 50 feet of his lot, measured from a fence running north…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McKean v. Alliance Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Mertens v. BerendsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Rothaermel v. AmerigeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Ukhtomski v. Tioga Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Arnold v. HansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Christensen v. TuckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Golden Press, Inc. v. RylandsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951
- Paurley v. HarrisIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Dolske v. GormleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Campbell v. WeisbrodIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.