City of Los Angeles v. Deacon
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
The admission of evidence as to the net profit made in operating a rock and gravel plant on the property being condemned in this action, was error which, it is our opinion, requires a reversal of the judgment. Mr. Newberry, a witness for the defendants, and himself one of them because of his interest as a sublessee of the premises, testified in detail concerning the rich deposit of rock and sand on the property; outlined the commercial future of the rock business in southern California, stating the extent of the demand, the limits of the supply, and the economic advantages his plant possessed…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Cent. Pac. R.R. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- People v. La MacChiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Joint Highway District No. 9 v. Ocean Shore RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- City of Newport Municipal Housing Commission v. Turner Advertising, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1960
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.