Huckey v. City of Temecula
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtFields, J.
*1095I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant, Charles Huckey, sued defendant and respondent, City of Temecula (the City), for injuries he sustained from tripping and falling on a defective city sidewalk. He alleged the sidewalk defect was a dangerous condition of public property. ( Gov. Code, §§ 830 et seq. )1 The trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on the ground the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law. The sidewalk was vertically uneven between two concrete panels, and the height differential was 9/16 of *1096an inch, three feet and one foot from the sidewalk's right…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- People v. BolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- People v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Kids' Universe v. In2labsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Chandler v. City of Cypress CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Fajardo v. DaileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Liss v. City of San Diego CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Miller v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 2023
- Nassman v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2026
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.