Legal Opinion

Rhoda v. County of Alameda

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 1933No. Docket No. 8876PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from an order granting plaintiffs a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. Plaintiffs and respondents sued for damages alleged to have been done to certain property fronting on Webster Street in the city of Alameda by reason of the removal of the Webster Street bridge across the Oakland estuary and the substitution of a tube under said estuary by defendant and appellant County of Alameda. The case was tried before a jury, which brought in a verdict for defendant. The trial court thereafter granted the motion for new trial, from which…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Terry v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Insurance Co. v. BoonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Newport v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Doehla v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Farrell v. County of PlacerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Wolfsen v. HathawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Wilson v. BevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Thompson v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Bellman v. County of Contra CostaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960

15 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