Legal Opinion

City of Los Angeles v. Hughes

California Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1927No. Docket Nos. L.A. 9029-9415PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

This proceeding in eminent domain was instituted in August, 1924, by the City of Los Angeles under the Park and Playground Act of 1909 (Deering’s Gen. Laws 1923, Act 6373). Exceptions to the report of the referees were filed by defendants Peder S. Pedersen and Catherine Pedersen, owners of the land in question, and by defendants T. Ishikata and S. Inouye, doing business under the firm name and style of Hoover Nursery Company, who were the lessees. After a hearing on the exceptions before the court judgment was rendered in favor of Peder C. Pedersen and Catherine Pedersen as owners in the sum…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Washburn v. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Cent. Pac. R.R. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. South Park Commissioners v. DunlevyIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Oakland Bank of Savings v. California Pressed Brick Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Montana R'y Co. v. WarrenMontana Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. People v. La MacChiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. State Road Commission v. FergusonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Trabue Pittman Corp. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946

54 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